Customs search compliance and high-value gold smuggling allegations justified refusal of regular bail during investigation.

High-value undeclared gold alleged to have been concealed and smuggled was treated as giving rise to a cognizable, non-bailable offence, and regular bail was refused at the investigation stage. The Court accepted that the customs search and arrest procedure complied with the Customs Act, the department's arrest and bail guidelines, and the requirement of contemporaneous consent for personal search before a lady gazetted officer. It also noted that the matter involved an economic offence and that investigation was still in progress, supporting rejection of bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail in a prosecution arising from alleged concealment and smuggling of high-value gold, and whether the customs officers complied with the statutory search and arrest safeguards.

Analysis: The offence was treated as cognizable and non-bailable because the value of the seized undeclared gold exceeded the statutory threshold. The search was held to be conducted in accordance with the Customs Act, the department's arrest and bail guidelines, and the contemporaneous consent obtained for personal search before a lady gazetted officer. The Court accepted that the arrest memo and related procedure did not suffer from illegality at the stage of investigation. The Court also noted that the matter involved an economic offence and that the investigation was still in progress.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to bail, and the bail application was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the customs record discloses compliance with the statutory search and arrest procedure and the alleged smuggling involves high-value undeclared gold attracting a cognizable and non-bailable offence, regular bail may be refused at the investigation stage.

---