Anticipatory bail in customs smuggling cases turns on statutory arrest powers, Section 108 statements, and bailability

Customs officers' statutory powers to summon, record statements and arrest are highlighted, and statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act are treated as distinct from police statements. The note also discusses the argument that offences under Section 135(1)(b), read with Section 104(6) and Section 104(7), are bailable, with that classification said to affect the maintainability of a Section 438 CrPC application. On the stated reasoning, anticipatory bail was declined and the application rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to a person apprehending arrest in a customs smuggling investigation, and whether the alleged offence was bailable so as to affect the maintainability of the application.

Analysis: The applicant sought pre-arrest protection on the basis that he had been summoned and examined under Section 108 of the Customs Act, and that the alleged liability, if any, would be under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act. The Court noted that the power of Customs Officers to summon, record statements, and arrest is statutory, and that statements under Section 108 are distinct from police statements. The Court also noted the argument that offences under Section 135(1)(b), in view of Section 104(6) and Section 104(7) of the Customs Act, were bailable. On that footing, the application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was held to be not sustainable; otherwise, the settled precedent against interference with the statutory customs process governed the matter.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was declined and the application was rejected.

---