Pre-arrest bail denied under Section 135 Customs Act for clandestine removal from bonded warehouse

HC dismissed pre-arrest bail application under Section 135 of Customs Act, 1962 for clandestine removal of goods from public bonded warehouse. Court found prima facie strong case against applicant based on co-accused statements under Section 108, identifying applicant as key conspirator who planned revenue fraud. Despite acknowledging statements require corroboration, court held economic offense affecting society's fabric warranted proper investigation. Granting bail would prejudice effective investigation into customs duty evasion and tracking clandestinely removed goods.

---

---

Issues involved: Application for pre-arrest bail in connection with an offence u/s 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 based on alleged clandestine removal of goods from a public bonded warehouse.

Summary:
1. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) received intelligence about goods being clandestinely removed from a public warehouse, leading to an investigation revealing the removal of Areca Nuts / Betel Nuts worth Rs. 56,77,03,316 from Akshay Logistics Warehouse.

2. The applicant was alleged to be the mastermind behind the conspiracy, as per statements of co-accused recorded u/s 108 of the Act. The applicant approached the Court seeking pre-arrest bail after the rejection of the application by the Additional Sessions Judge.

3. The applicant's counsel argued that the complicity cannot be sustained solely based on the co-accused statements and emphasized the lack of material evidence against the applicant. Previous court decisions granting pre-arrest bail in similar cases were cited to support the application.

4. The Respondent, representing DRI, contended that the applicant was the key conspirator in the scheme to evade customs duty and that custodial interrogation was necessary to establish the full extent of involvement.

5. The Court analyzed the statements of the co-accused, which implicated the applicant as the central figure in the plan to defraud the revenue. Prima facie evidence suggested the applicant's involvement in the conspiracy to remove goods from the warehouse without payment of customs duty.

6. Considering the strong prima facie case against the applicant in an economic offence, the Court refused to grant pre-arrest bail, emphasizing the need for effective investigation to uncover the fraud and identify all involved parties.

7. Citing previous legal precedents and the potential impact of anticipatory bail on investigations, the Court concluded that granting bail to the applicant could hinder the investigative process and therefore rejected the application for pre-arrest bail.

Judgment: The application for pre-arrest bail was rejected, and the interim protection granted earlier was vacated. The Court clarified that its observations were solely for bail determination and should not influence the trial court's decision on the guilt of the applicant.

---