Application for Anticipatory Bail Dismissed: Court Finds Petitioner Only a Witness, Not an Accused in Customs Act Case.

The HC dismissed the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The court determined that the application was premature and not maintainable, as the petitioner was summoned for inquiry as a witness, not as an accused. The court noted that the statutory requirement of written approval for arrest under Section 104 of the Customs Act had not been met, and the conditions for anticipatory bail were not satisfied. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues:
The petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case under Sections 132/135(1)(a)/135(1)(b) of the Customs Act 1962.

Details:
1. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail based on summons issued after disclosure statement by an accused, who was already granted bail. The trial court dismissed the bail application.

2. The respondent argued that the bail application was premature as powers under Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962 can only be exercised with written approval for arrest, which was not obtained in this case.

3. The respondent emphasized the statutory nature of powers under Section 104 and the requirement of written approval for arrest under the Customs Act, 1962. The application for anticipatory bail was considered premature and not maintainable.

4. The respondent relied on a previous court order to support the argument that the current bail application was premature.

5. The court observed that the summons issued to the petitioner were for inquiry purposes as a witness, not as an accused. The ingredients of Section 438 Cr.P.C. were not met.

6. Reference was made to a previous court order highlighting the need for written approval for arrest under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The court found the present bail application premature and dismissed it as not maintainable.

---