2021 (10) TMI 252 - HC - Customs

Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act - applicant appeared on issuance of such summons or not - Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - HELD THAT - It is pertinent to note that the co-accused i.e. Ravindra Chandrakantbhai Patel, who was issued summons under Section- 108 of the Customs Act, has approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail. The Coordinate Bench vide judgment in RAVINDRA CHANDRAKANTBHAI PATEL VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT 2020 (9) TMI 1208 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT has rejected the application as prematured, in light of the observations made by the Apex Court. Thus, as per the law promulgated by the Apex Court the Summons under Section 108 of the Custom Act is only issued for recording the evidence and the High Court cannot direct the respondent authorities not to arrest such accused, as the anticipatory application would be premature at this stage. Even the direction issued by the High Court not to arrest such accused for limited period would be illegal and against the law. Application rejected.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC against summons under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962.
2. Interpretation of law regarding anticipatory bail in connection with summons issued under Section 108 of Customs Act.
3. Allegations of abuse during summons execution.
4. Legal consequences of non-compliance with summons under Section 108 of Customs Act.
5. Precedents regarding anticipatory bail in similar cases.

Analysis:
1. The applicant sought anticipatory bail against summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent argued that the application would not survive based on legal precedents, citing the case of Union of India vs. Padam Narain Aggarwal. The respondent highlighted that the purpose of Section 108 is to elicit the truth and ensure compliance with summonses for recording statements.

2. The applicant's counsel contended that the applicant had no connection with the entity mentioned in the show-cause notice and raised concerns about the behavior of the associating officer during the summons execution. The respondent, in their affidavit, detailed the efforts made to serve the summons and the consequences of the applicant's non-appearance, indicating absconding behavior.

3. Referring to the Supreme Court's observations in the Union of India vs. Padam Narain Aggarwal case, the Court reiterated that a person summoned under Section 108 is obligated to comply and provide truthful statements. The Court emphasized that anticipatory bail applications in such cases may be premature, as seen in the rejection of a similar application by a Coordinate Bench for a co-accused.

4. The Court emphasized that the purpose of summonses under Section 108 is for recording evidence, and directing authorities not to arrest the accused or imposing conditions like prior notice would be against the law. The judgment highlighted that the High Court cannot interfere with the statutory power of arrest granted to Custom Officers in cases of non-bailable offenses.

5. Based on the arguments presented, observations from the Supreme Court, and legal precedents, the Court rejected the anticipatory bail application, discharging the rule and vacating any interim relief granted earlier. The decision was made in line with the legal principles outlined in the Union of India vs. Padam Narain Aggarwal case and the rejection of a similar application for a co-accused.