HARIYANI ABBAS GULAMHUSEN Vs. DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Learned Advocate, Ms. Sancheti, waives service for Respondent No.1-DRI and learned APP, Mr. Patel, waives service for Respondent No.2-State.

(2.) This is an application by the petitioner, filed under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in brief, 'the Code'), seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with the inquiry, being F.No. DRI/AZU/CI/ENQ-58(INT-18)/2023, as he apprehends his arrest.

(3.) The brief facts of the case of the prosecution in capsulized form are that the officers of Respondent No.1 received an intelligence in-put that container Nos. DRYU9982719, NLLU4207620 and TGHU9180934 are carrying some contraband goods, instead of the goods, which were declared in the Import General Manifest ('IGM', in short). On receipt of such an intelligence in-put, the consignments in question were ordered to be put on hold, till the transshipment permission is given by the Customs Authority. It, however, appears that out of the total three containers, two containers bearing Nos. DRYU9982719 and NLLU4207620, were transferred to Inland Container Depot ('ICD', hereinafter), Bangalore, whereas, the container bearing No. TGHU9180934 was transferred to Chennai Port.