NAMAN KULTHIA Vs. DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in the case File No. DRI/BZU/S-IV/ENQ-19/INT-NIL/2022 under Ss. 132/135(1)(a)/135(1)(b) of the Customs Act 1962 registered at Police Station DRI, Delhi Zonal Unit.

(2.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the summons dtd. 22/8/2022 and 12/9/2022 were issued to the petitioner, asking him to join inquiry/ investigation only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the accused person, namely, Sanjeev Verma who was arrested on 22/8/2022 by the respondent/DRI. It is further submitted that the said Sanjeev Verma was granted bail on 15/9/2022 by the trial court. It is further submitted that after receiving the summons, the petitioner approached the trial court and filed the application under Sec. 438, Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail, which was subsequently dismissed vide order dtd. 28/9/2022. It is further submitted by him that the entire case of the prosecution is based on the statement made by the accused, Sanjeev Verma, who is already on bail.

(3.) On the other hand, it is submitted by learned senior standing counsel for the respondent/DRI while vehemently opposing the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the present bail application is pre-mature. It is further submitted by him that the powers under Sec. 104 of the Customs Act,1962 is statutory in nature which can only be exercised on behalf of the Department under the order of the Principle Commissioner or the Commissioner of Customs, solely in those circumstances when he has reason to believe that any person in India has committed an offence punishable under Ss. 132,133,135,135A or Sec. 136 of the Customs Act, 1962. It is further submitted that for affecting arrest of anybody for offences punishable under the Customs Act, 1962, a written approval of the competent authority i.e., Commissioner of Customs/Principal/Additional Director, DRI is required which has not been obtained till date in the present case. Thus, the application for anticipatory bail itself is pre-mature and hence, not maintainable.