Anticipatory bail in customs duty evasion case granted where documents were already seized and custodial interrogation was not justified.

Anticipatory bail in a customs duty evasion matter was considered where the import documents were already in the Customs Department's custody and no specific need for custodial interrogation was shown. The Court noted that, if the petitioner was still required for inquiry, the investigating agency could require appearance by notice under the procedural law. Allegations about transfer of money through non-banking or hawala channels were treated as a separate issue and not relevant to the bail request. Anticipatory bail was granted subject to conditions imposed by the Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a customs duty evasion case where the material documents were already in the custody of the Customs Department and the investigating agency did not show a need for custodial interrogation.

Analysis: The petition arose from allegations of undervaluation of imported goods and resultant duty evasion under the Customs Act. The materials and documents relating to the import transactions were already stated to be in the custody of the Customs Department. The Court noted that no specific justification was shown for requiring the petitioner's custody for investigation. It further held that if the petitioner was still required for inquiry, the investigating agency could issue notice requiring appearance for investigation, as contemplated by the procedural law. The allegation regarding transfer of money through non-banking or hawala channels was treated as a separate matter not germane to the present petition.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was granted, subject to the conditions imposed by the Court.

---