Anticipatory bail and summons under customs inquiry failed where no cogent basis for arrest was shown.

Anticipatory bail was sought on the basis that summons issued for inquiry under Section 108 of the Customs Act created a real apprehension of arrest, and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary because the matter was documentary in nature. The application was rejected because the applicant had repeatedly failed to appear despite several summons and had not honoured an assurance to attend. The absence of any proposal or sanction for arrest from the competent authority, and the distinction between a summons for inquiry and a step toward arrest, meant the asserted apprehension was not supported by cogent material. The cited precedents were held inapplicable on the facts.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail on the basis of an asserted apprehension of arrest during inquiry under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The application was founded on the claim that issuance of summons for inquiry indicated a real likelihood of arrest and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary because the matter was documentary in nature. The refusal of anticipatory bail was supported by the applicant's repeated non-appearance despite several summons and an unfulfilled assurance to attend, the absence of any proposal or sanction for arrest from the competent authority, and the distinction between a summons for inquiry and an actual step toward arrest. The asserted apprehension was held to be unsupported by any cogent material, and the cited precedents were found inapplicable on the facts.

Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to anticipatory bail, and the application was dismissed.

---