Anticipatory bail in customs investigation refused where summons compliance and early-stage allegations supported refusal of pre-arrest protection.

Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC was refused where summons had been issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act and the investigation was still at an early stage. The Court noted that a person summoned under Section 108 must comply, and that arrest under the Customs Act is permissible only where the officer has reason to believe offences under Sections 132, 133, 135, 135A or 136 have been committed. Given allegations of collection and transmission of passenger manifest data to facilitate record manipulation and customs duty evasion, the Court held that the accusations were not frivolous and declined detailed scrutiny of evidence at this stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant in a case where summons had been issued under the Customs Act and the investigation was at an early stage.

Analysis: The application was under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The materials indicated allegations of collection and transmission of passenger manifest data to facilitate manipulation of records and evasion of customs duty. The Court noted that a person summoned under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is required to comply, and that arrest under the Act is permissible only where the officer has reason to believe that the person has committed offences punishable under Sections 132, 133, 135, 135A or 136 of the Customs Act, 1962. Applying the limited scope of anticipatory bail at the investigation stage, the Court found that the allegations were not frivolous and that detailed scrutiny of evidence was unwarranted.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was not granted and the applicant was directed to appear before the investigating officer.

---