Anticipatory bail denied due to applicant's non-appearance and lack of arrest apprehension.

The court dismissed the anticipatory bail application, citing the applicant's non-appearance before the DRI and the lack of a real apprehension of arrest. The court held that the applicant's conduct and the absence of any proposal for his arrest by the DRI disentitled him from seeking anticipatory bail. The court clarified that its observations did not reflect on the case's merits.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the applicant should be granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., 1973.
2. Whether the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) has sufficient grounds to arrest the applicant.
3. Whether the applicant's non-appearance before the DRI affects his entitlement to anticipatory bail.

Issue-wise Summary:

1. Whether the applicant should be granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., 1973:
The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., 1973, fearing arrest by the DRI in connection with the investigation of M/s. Green Globe Enterprises for alleged duty evasion. The applicant argued that he was not a key managerial person of the entity and that the case was based on documentary evidence already in DRI's possession. The applicant cited previous judgments to support his claim of having "reasons to believe" he might be arrested.

2. Whether the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) has sufficient grounds to arrest the applicant:
The DRI contended that the applicant had not appeared in response to multiple summonses issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, and had evaded inquiry. The DRI argued that no proposal or sanction for the applicant's arrest had been sought from the competent authority, making the applicant's apprehension of arrest unfounded. The DRI emphasized that the applicant's non-appearance disqualified him from seeking anticipatory bail.

3. Whether the applicant's non-appearance before the DRI affects his entitlement to anticipatory bail:
The court noted that the applicant's failure to appear before the DRI despite multiple summonses and assurances undermined his claim of apprehension of arrest. The court found no material basis for the applicant's fear of arrest, as no arrest sanction had been sought. The court also observed that the applicant's argument regarding the use of the term "investigation" in summonses was untenable, as the context indicated an "inquiry."

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the anticipatory bail application, citing the applicant's non-appearance before the DRI and the lack of a real apprehension of arrest. The court held that the applicant's conduct and the absence of any proposal for his arrest by the DRI disentitled him from seeking anticipatory bail. The court clarified that its observations did not reflect on the case's merits.

---