Anticipatory bail in customs investigation refused where the applicant was only summoned for examination and not yet an accused.

Anticipatory bail in a customs investigation was refused where the applicant had only been summoned for examination under Section 108 of the Customs Act and had not yet been arrayed as an accused. The Court noted that customs authorities have statutory power to question persons when there is reason to believe an offence under the Act has been committed, and that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, especially in economic offences. On the facts, the apprehension of arrest was found premature, and pre-arrest protection was declined so the investigation could proceed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail in a customs investigation where he had been summoned for questioning and had not yet been arrayed as an accused.

Analysis: The application was founded on apprehension of arrest in a customs investigation involving alleged smuggling of gold through diplomatic channels. The Court noted that the applicant had only been summoned for examination under Section 108 of the Customs Act and had not yet been made an accused. It also considered the materials indicating his contact with a prime accused and the settled principle that customs authorities have statutory power to question persons when there is reason to believe an offence under the Act has been committed. The Court further noted that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and that economic offences stand on a different footing. On the facts, the apprehension of arrest was found to be premature and the investigation could not be curtailed by granting pre-arrest bail.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was declined and the applicant was held not entitled to pre-arrest protection.

---