Anticipatory bail in customs offence refused where recovery, weak documentation, and non-cooperation showed no basis for protection.

Anticipatory bail in an alleged Customs Act offence was refused where the recovery involved a large quantity of gold ornaments and cash, and the explanation of a bona fide jewellery business was unsupported by reliable documents. The Court noted the absence of proof of the applicant's ownership or control over the firms concerned, no satisfactory corroboration that the co-accused were regular employees, and non-cooperation with the investigation, including failure to respond to summons. In an economic offence of this nature, these facts did not justify protection from arrest, and the bail request was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail in respect of the alleged offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The application was founded on the plea that the seized gold ornaments and cash formed part of a bona fide jewellery business and that any regulatory breach, if at all, would at best attract consequences under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016. The material before the Court, however, showed recovery of a very large quantity of gold and Indian currency, a lack of satisfactory documents explaining the source of the cash and the alleged sales, absence of proof of the applicant's ownership or control over the concerned firms, and no proper corroboration of the claim that the co-accused were regular employees. The applicant also did not cooperate with the investigation or respond to summons. In the context of an economic offence involving a substantial quantity of recovered goods and cash, these circumstances did not justify the grant of anticipatory bail.

Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to anticipatory bail and the request was rejected.

---