TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
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>Anticipatory Bail Denied in Cigarette Smuggling Case: NRI Financing Probe Halts Immediate Relief Under Customs Act</h1> <h3>Kamlesh Sonagela Versus The State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.</h3> Delhi HC dismissed anticipatory bail application in cigarette smuggling case. Court found no immediate arrest threat for NRI accused of financing illegal ... Territorial jurisdiction to entertain present petition - Grant of anticipatory bail - cigarette smuggling - illegal importation of 57,60,000 sticks of cigarettes concealed as insulating flexible tubes - HELD THAT:- It is not required go into the question of territorial jurisdiction at this stage since present bail application is otherwise premature in view of the specific stand taken by the respondent in its reply that there is no immediate apprehension of arrest as petitioner has been summoned for enquires to be made under Section 108 of the Customs Act. Accordingly, bail application is dismissed. The Delhi High Court, through Justice A.K. Pathak, dismissed the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner, an NRI working in Dubai, was implicated by co-accused Bhavesh Jethmalbhai Thakkar in a cigarette smuggling case involving illegal importation of 57,60,000 sticks of cigarettes concealed as insulating flexible tubes, seized under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner was named in a statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act as having financed the import. The respondent contended the petitioner avoided summons under Section 108 and that there was no immediate apprehension of arrest, rendering the bail application premature. Jurisdictional objections were noted but not decided. The Court held that since 'there is no immediate apprehension of arrest' and the petitioner was summoned for enquiry, anticipatory bail was not warranted at this stage, thus dismissing the application as premature.
TaxTMI 
