TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Application for Anticipatory Bail Dismissed: Court Finds Petitioner Only a Witness, Not an Accused in Customs Act Case.</h1> <h3>NAMAN KULTHIA Versus DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE</h3> NAMAN KULTHIA Versus DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE - 2023 (385) E.L.T. 489 (Del.) 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
