Customs summons and anticipatory bail: mere inquiry under Section 108 did not justify pre-arrest protection.

A person summoned under Section 108 of the Customs Act for an inquiry into alleged export manipulation and smuggling was not entitled to anticipatory bail merely because arrest was feared. The inquiry power permits a customs officer to require attendance, evidence, and documents, and the proceeding is treated as a judicial proceeding only for the limited purpose of Sections 193 and 228 IPC. Because the summons showed only a call to explain the transaction and no formal accusation had yet been made, the summons were not treated as equivalent to police action for Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Pre-arrest bail was therefore not warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be granted to a person summoned under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 in an inquiry relating to alleged export manipulation and smuggling, when no formal accusation had yet been made.

Analysis: Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 empowers a gazetted customs officer to summon a person to give evidence or produce documents in an inquiry connected with smuggling, and the person summoned is bound to attend and state the truth. Such an inquiry is treated as a judicial proceeding for the limited purpose of Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The summons on record showed that the petitioner had been called only to explain the export transaction and had not yet been accused of an offence. Authorities acting under Section 108 are not to be equated with police officers for the purpose of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In these circumstances, the mere apprehension of arrest on being summoned did not justify pre-arrest bail.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was not warranted and the petition failed.

---