TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 424
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich imported three consignments in the month of December 2022. The same were intercepted by the DRI on allegations of evasion of duty and based thereon the case was instituted. 3. Mr. N. Hariharan, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant submits that it is a matter of record that the applicant is not a Director/Partner/Key Managerial person/employee of the said entity. He further submits that the actual partners of the said entity, one Sh. Mukesh and Sh. Rajbeer, in their statements have categorically mentioned that the said entity was incorporated on the instructions of one Manjeet and not the applicant. 4. Learned senior counsel also submits that the entire case is on documentary evidence, the same already being in possession and custody of DRI, there is no purpose in seeking custodial interrogation of the application by the DRI. 5. Mr. Hariharan learned senior counsel submits that the applicant in the present case is seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest at the hands of DRI. Learned senior counsel submits that the contention of the DRI that it is merely summoning the application under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 (for short "the Act") is a misnomer sinc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... India vs. Padam Narain Aggarwal and Ors. reported in (2008) 13 SCC 305 and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors vs. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565, to submit that an applicant must show that he has "reasons to believe" that he may be arrested and that the said belief ought to be founded on reasonable grounds only if there is something tangible to go by to construe that the same is genuine. According to learned senior counsel, the allegations now disclosed by the respondent in its reply are reasonable grounds leading the applicant to have a "reason to believe" that he may be arrested. 9. Learned senior counsel submits that the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Vishesh Jain (supra) had enlarged the applicant therein on anticipatory bail in similar circumstances. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions and the judgments relied upon, learned senior counsel submits that the applicant shall make himself available for investigations at any time the DRI requires upon issuance of any such notices and the applicant be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 10. Moreover, learned senior counsel submits that the applicant has his roots well entrenched in the society, is a permanent resident....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....such time, the apprehension of the applicant that he would be arrested is a pure figment of his imagination. As a matter of fact, learned senior standing counsel submits that as on today there is no such sanction sought from the competent authority by the DRI qua the applicant since inquiry qua the applicant has not even commenced. To support the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel relies upon the judgment of Coordinate bench of this Court in case of Manjodh Singh Cheema vs. Director of Revenue Intelligence dated 06.04.2021 in Bail Application No. 1149/2021 wherein the aforesaid aspect of a mandatory sanction in written from the Commissioner (Additional Director General, DRI) has to be necessarily obtained before any such arrest is effected was taken note of. Since in that case, no such sanction was obtained as on that date, the anticipatory bail application was held to be premature and disposed of accordingly. 14. Learned senior standing counsel submits that the present reply, supported by an affidavit of the officer of the rank of Deputy Director, DRI, discloses that there is neither any proposal nor any application seeking approval or a sanction of the competent authority ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....without fail, the applicant did not do so. Having regard to the fact that the applicant had never appeared before the SIO, even once, to give his voluntary statement, as contemplated under Section 108 of the Act, it is not within the authority of the applicant to contend that there is any real apprehension that the applicant would be arrested. In other words, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no rationale or material basis to conclude that there could be any such apprehension, particularly when the applicant had not even appeared before DRI to give any statement even once. Attributing apprehension to such unfounded and baseless and imaginative projections, is not only untenable in law but impermissible. 21. The non appearance of the applicant even once before the DRI, disentitles the applicant from urging any such apprehension, which apparently, is without any basis. 22. Moreover, this Court has also considered the contents of the summons just to satisfy itself, however, the word investigation is pre qualified with the words "inquiry" which should be sufficient to come to a conclusion that as on those dates, it was a mere summon issued by the DRI and nothing m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ously argued the aforesaid point and sought to impress this Court that there are "reasons to believe" that the applicant apprehends arrest. For that purpose learned senior relies upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padam Narain(supra) and Gurbaksh Singh (Supra) and Vishesh Jain (Supra) of Delhi High Court to submit that the words "reasons to believe" has to be gathered from the facts arising in a particular case. According to learned senior counsel, the contents of the reply itself establish that the applicant had cogent and grounded "reasons to believe" that he would be, in all likelihood, be arrested in case he appears before DRI. 27. This Court has considered all the aforesaid judgments relied on, on behalf of the applicant and so far as judgment of Vishesh Jain (Supra) is concerned, on facts there is a distinction that in that case the applicant therein had infact participated previously in inquiry upon summons being issued to him in that regard. That is not so in the present case, and therefore the said judgment is not applicable. So far as the judgment of Supreme Court in Padam Narain (supra) and Gurbaksh Singh (Supra) is concerned there is no quarrel on the prepo....