Anticipatory bail in customs inquiry held premature where summons issued and no offence or complaint was yet registered.

Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC was considered in the context of a customs inquiry where the applicant had only been summoned, his statement recorded, and no offence or complaint had yet been registered. The Gujarat HC noted that arrest powers under Section 104 of the Customs Act are statutory and depend on objective facts giving reason to believe that a customs offence has been committed. It also reiterated that blanket protection against arrest or pre-emptive restraints on lawful customs action are impermissible. On those facts, the application was treated as premature and rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was premature when the applicant had only been summoned in a customs inquiry, the investigation was still pending, and no offence or complaint had yet been registered.

Analysis: The application arose from summons issued in a customs inquiry concerning imported machinery. The record showed that the applicant had appeared before the customs authorities and his statement had been recorded, while the inquiry remained in progress and no offence or complaint had been registered against him. The Court relied on the statutory scheme under Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the settled principle that the power of arrest in customs matters is statutory and must be exercised on objective facts where the officer has reason to believe that a person has committed offences punishable under Sections 132, 133, 135, 135A or 136 of the Customs Act, 1962. It also noticed the earlier Supreme Court view that blanket protection against arrest or directions restraining the customs authorities from exercising lawful power of arrest are impermissible. The principles governing anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were not found to assist the applicant in the present stage of inquiry.

Conclusion: The anticipatory bail application was held to be premature and was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a customs inquiry is still under investigation, the person has been summoned and examined, and no offence or complaint has yet been registered, anticipatory bail may be refused as premature, since the statutory power of arrest under the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be curtailed by a blanket pre-emptive order.

---