Customs offence under Section 135(1)(ii) held non-bailable, and ill-health did not justify anticipatory bail in an economic offence.

An offence punishable under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962, carrying imprisonment of up to three years, falls outside the bailable class in Table II of the First Schedule to the CrPC and is therefore non-bailable. In the context of a continuing customs investigation, the Court also held that ill-health does not by itself justify immunity from arrest in a serious economic offence, particularly where prima facie involvement was indicated and effective investigation would be affected. Anticipatory bail was declined, with custody medical care treated as an adequate safeguard.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an offence punishable under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 is bailable under Table II of the First Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail on the ground of ill-health and the circumstances of the investigation.

Issue (i): whether an offence punishable under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 is bailable under Table II of the First Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The offence under Section 135(1)(ii) carries punishment extending up to three years, and therefore falls outside the category of offences punishable with imprisonment for less than three years or with fine only. On that basis, the offence does not fall within the bailable class under Table II. The Court declined to accept the contrary view that had treated the offence as bailable.

Conclusion: The offence under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 was held to be non-bailable.

Issue (ii): whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail on the ground of ill-health and the circumstances of the investigation.

Analysis: The Court held that ill-health does not provide immunity from arrest in economic offences. It noted that adequate medical care can be ensured during custody, while a blanket shield from arrest would impede effective investigation, especially where the material indicated prima facie involvement and the investigation was still continuing. The petitioner's conduct in the investigation was also taken into account.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was declined despite the plea of ill-health.

Final Conclusion: The Court found no ground to grant pre-arrest protection in a customs-duty evasion matter involving a serious economic offence, and the petition was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: An offence under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962, being punishable up to three years, is non-bailable under the classification in Table II of the First Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and medical hardship alone does not justify anticipatory bail in a serious economic offence.

---