Anticipatory bail in customs misdeclaration case refused where prima facie overvaluation and custodial interrogation were found necessary.

Anticipatory bail was declined in a customs prosecution concerning alleged misdeclaration and overvaluation of imported rough diamonds. The court treated the material as disclosing a prima facie case of incorrect value declaration and considered the offence an economic offence affecting the national economy. Relying on customs statements, valuation dispute material, and indications of the applicant's role in arranging the import, the court held that the investigation was still in progress and that custodial interrogation was necessary. Pre-arrest bail was therefore refused at that stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a customs prosecution alleging misdeclaration and overvaluation of imported goods, where custodial interrogation was claimed to be necessary.

Analysis: The application was examined on the basis of the allegations regarding import of rough diamonds, the valuation dispute, the statements recorded under customs law, and the material suggesting the applicant's involvement in arranging the import. The Court found that the matter disclosed a prima facie case of misdeclaration in value, that the offence was an economic offence affecting the national economy, and that the investigation was still in progress. In view of the prosecution material, the Court held that custodial interrogation was necessary and that pre-arrest bail would not be at that stage.

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

---