Anticipatory bail granted to accused in prohibited e-cigarette import case due to insufficient evidence of direct involvement

The Bombay HC granted anticipatory bail to an applicant charged with importing prohibited e-cigarettes through mis-declaration. The court found the applicant was not the importer, customs broker, or directly connected to the importing entity. The prosecution's case relied primarily on co-accused statements and money trail evidence. The HC determined there was insufficient prima facie material to establish the applicant's involvement with the consignment or warrant custodial interrogation. Bail was granted on furnishing a PR bond of Rs.50,000 with sureties.

---

---

Issues:
Apprehension of arrest in connection with mis-declared goods under Customs Act, 1962; Allegations of involvement in import of prohibited goods; Cooperation in investigation; Necessity of custodial interrogation; Prima facie case for custodial interrogation.

Analysis:
1. The applicant faced arrest due to alleged involvement in mis-declared goods under the Customs Act, 1962, specifically Sections 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b). The investigation revealed concealed e-cigarettes within an industrial oven, prohibited for import under the Prohibition of Electronic Cigarette Act, 2019.

2. The importer, M/s. Shreeji Corporation, implicated the applicant through statements of key conspirators. Money trail evidence suggested the applicant's involvement in clearing the prohibited goods, despite not being the importer, CHA, or IEC holder, raising suspicions of active participation in the import.

3. The applicant's counsel argued for bail, citing cooperation in investigations and lack of evidence linking the applicant directly to the offenses. Reference was made to a Supreme Court case emphasizing the right against self-incrimination and the need for cooperation without confession during investigations.

4. The Respondent contended that the applicant lacked cooperation, refused to answer critical questions, and was the mastermind behind the import of prohibited goods, justifying custodial interrogation based on the money trail and statements of co-accused.

5. Upon review, the Court found no direct connection of the applicant with the importing entity or customs broker. The case against the applicant relied mainly on co-accused statements. The Court noted the lack of substantial evidence to establish a prima facie case for custodial interrogation, protecting the applicant's liberty.

6. Consequently, the Court allowed the application, granting bail upon arrest, with conditions of cooperation in the investigation, non-tampering with evidence, attending court proceedings, and refraining from threats or inducements. The decision was based on the absence of compelling evidence linking the applicant to the alleged offenses, warranting protection of the applicant's liberty.

---