Anticipatory bail in smuggling cases may be refused when the accused avoids investigation and custodial interrogation is needed.

Anticipatory bail was refused where the accused had repeatedly failed to join the investigation on unsustainable pretexts, and the court treated that non-cooperation as a strong factor against relief. The nature and gravity of the smuggling allegations, the accused's alleged link with the shop and transactions, and the need for custodial interrogation to trace the source, manner, and participants in the operation justified rejection of bail. The court reiterated that anticipatory bail is not granted as a matter of course and depends on cooperation with the investigating agency, antecedents, flight risk, and investigative necessity.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the alleged smuggling-related investigation, his non-joining of the investigation, and the claimed need for custodial interrogation.

Analysis: Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of course. The relevant considerations are the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the accused, his antecedents, the possibility of fleeing from justice, and whether custodial interrogation is required. Where the accused repeatedly avoids joining the investigation on false or sham pretexts and does not cooperate with the investigating agency, such conduct weighs heavily against grant of relief. In the present matter, the record disclosed repeated non-compliance with summons, material indicating the petitioner's connection with the shop and the alleged transactions, and the need to unravel the source, manner, and participants in the alleged smuggling operation through custodial interrogation.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to anticipatory bail and the application was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Anticipatory bail may be refused where the accused has not cooperated with investigation, repeatedly avoided appearance on unsustainable pretexts, and custodial interrogation is necessary having regard to the seriousness of the allegations and the need to uncover the offence.

---