Court permits impleading of Customs Commissioner in gold bars seizure case; denies anticipatory bail due to evidence.

The court allowed the application to implead the Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar as respondent No.2 in a case involving the seizure of gold bars. The petitioner, seeking anticipatory bail for non-bailable warrants related to the gold bars' seizure, was denied bail due to substantial evidence against them, including evasion of authorities and failure to disclose crucial information. The court emphasized the seriousness of the allegations and the need for custodial interrogation, leading to the dismissal of the anticipatory bail application and disposal of pending applications.

---

---

Issues:
1. Application for impleading the Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar as respondent No.2.
2. Petition for anticipatory bail due to non-bailable warrants in a custom case regarding gold bars seizure.

Issue 1: Application for Impleading Commissioner of Customs
The judgment allows the application to implead the Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar as respondent No.2 based on the reasons stated in the application. The Amended Memo of Parties is taken on record, ensuring the Commissioner's inclusion as a party in the case.

Issue 2: Petition for Anticipatory Bail
The petitioner, a business proprietor, sought anticipatory bail due to non-bailable warrants issued in connection with the seizure of 27 gold bars at the International Check Post, Attari, Amritsar. The petitioner claimed innocence, stating lack of knowledge about the gold bars concealed in a consignment of apples from Afghanistan. The petitioner highlighted business dealings with entities from Afghanistan but denied involvement in the smuggling of gold bars.

The Customs Authorities presented evidence against the petitioner, alleging evasion of appearance and withholding crucial information about the consignment and individuals involved. The complainant argued for custodial interrogation based on incriminating evidence, including telephonic conversations indicating potential security risks or illicit financial transactions. The complainant referenced legal precedents to support the need for thorough investigation and denial of anticipatory bail.

The judgment denied the petitioner's plea for anticipatory bail, citing substantial evidence warranting arrest and custodial interrogation. The court emphasized the petitioner's evasion of Customs Authorities, failure to disclose relevant information, and the seriousness of the allegations, leading to the dismissal of the anticipatory bail application. The pending applications were disposed of accordingly following the dismissal of the main petition.

---