Anticipatory bail in customs investigation refused where non-compliance with summons and custodial interrogation needs were shown.

Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC was refused in a customs investigation where gold bars were found in a consignment linked to the petitioner's business, summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act were not complied with, and proceedings under Section 104 were initiated to secure his presence. The Court relied on material indicating avoidance of appearance, statements, and electronic evidence, and held that custodial interrogation was necessary. On those facts, the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in a customs investigation arising from seizure of gold bars and alleged evasion of summons.

Analysis: The petition was founded on Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The material placed before the Court showed that the consignment linked to the petitioner's business was found carrying gold bars, that summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were not complied with, and that proceedings under Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962 were initiated for securing his presence. The Court also noted material suggesting a need for custodial interrogation, including the petitioner's conduct in avoiding appearance and the evidence gathered from statements and electronic material. On these facts, the Court found no ground to extend the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was declined to the petitioner.

---