https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309085 The court dismissed the anticipatory bail application as premature due to the absence of required approval for arrest under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. It emphasized the necessity of obtaining written approval from the Commissioner (Additional Director General, DRI) for offenses under the Customs Act. The applicant's willingness to cooperate was noted, but the court highlighted the importance of complying with statutory requirements for arrest. This case underscores the procedural significance of seeking anticipatory bail in customs-related matters and the need for adherence to statutory procedures in legal proceedings. en-us Tue, 06 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Aug 2023 21:32:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309085 The court dismissed the anticipatory bail application as premature due to the absence of required approval for arrest under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. It emphasized the necessity of obtaining written approval from the Commissioner (Additional Director General, DRI) for offenses under the Customs Act. The applicant's willingness to cooperate was noted, but the court highlighted the importance of complying with statutory requirements for arrest. This case underscores the procedural significance of seeking anticipatory bail in customs-related matters and the need for adherence to statutory procedures in legal proceedings. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 06 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309085