2023 (10) TMI 1440 - DSC - Customs

Seeking grant of anticipatory bail as per section 438 of Cr.P.C. - well organized syndicate involved in smuggling of Areca Nuts in India - lack of evidence against appellant - HELD THAT - It is to be noted that, there might be cases booked against the applicant, there is no document to show that in any of these cases the applicant was convicted. Unless the applicant is convicted it cannot be said that he is serial law breaker. The applicant deserves protection from arrest - Application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of Cr.P.C.
2. Allegations of smuggling Areca Nuts in India.
3. Ownership of withheld goods from Jebel Ali Port, Dubai.
4. Past criminal record and pending cases against the applicant.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with an application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of Cr.P.C. by the accused in a case involving the smuggling of Areca Nuts in India. The prosecution alleged that the accused was part of a well-organized syndicate involved in smuggling Areca Nuts, leading to the seizure of a consignment falsely declared as containing Calcium Nitrate. The accused was found to have absconded, and search operations at his office and residence were fruitless. The prosecution further contended that the accused attempted to smuggle Areca Nuts into India using a concocted story to mislead authorities regarding the consignment's contents.

In defense, the applicant relied on legal precedents, including a Supreme Court decision in the case of Satender Kumar Antil, emphasizing the necessity for the investigation agency to issue a notice before effecting an arrest based on reasonable grounds. Additionally, reference was made to another Supreme Court case, Union of India Vs. Sampat Raj Dugar, which established the rights of exporters over unclaimed goods unless proven to be involved in fraud. The accused claimed no ownership over the withheld goods from Jebel Ali Port, Dubai, aligning with the legal principles cited.

The prosecution raised concerns about the accused's criminal record, alleging involvement in cases related to prohibited imports and various sections of the IPC. However, the defense argued that the absence of any conviction in these cases implied the accused was not a serial lawbreaker. The court, considering the arguments and legal precedents cited, granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, confirming interim protection and imposing conditions for cooperation with the investigation agency and refraining from tampering with evidence.

In conclusion, the judgment balanced the allegations of smuggling and the accused's criminal record with legal principles governing anticipatory bail, ultimately providing protection from arrest to the applicant while ensuring compliance with investigative procedures and evidence preservation.