Rettracted customs statement and need for custodial interrogation justified refusal of anticipatory bail in alleged smuggling probe.

A statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was treated as admissible at the investigation stage even though later retracted, with the effect of retraction left for trial. On the prima facie material, the Court found involvement in an alleged smuggling network and held that custodial interrogation was necessary to trace firms and transactions. It further ruled that non-remand of a co-accused, bail to another accused, and an offer to deposit money did not create parity or displace the need for interrogation. Anticipatory bail was therefore refused under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a customs evasion case where the applicant was implicated through a co-accused's statement under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, notwithstanding retraction of that statement and the applicant's plea that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

Analysis: The application was considered in the context of allegations under the Customs Act, 1962 and the need for effective investigation into an alleged smuggling operation. The Court held that a statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is admissible and may be relied upon at the stage of investigation, even if later retracted, with the effect of such retraction to be examined at trial. The Court found that the material disclosed prima facie involvement of the applicant and indicated that custodial interrogation was required to unravel the alleged network of firms and transactions. The Court also held that the absence of remand of a co-accused did not defeat the investigation, that prior grant of bail to another accused did not create parity for anticipatory bail, and that the applicant's willingness to deposit money did not displace the need for custodial interrogation.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was refused because the Court found custodial interrogation necessary and declined to exercise discretion under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---