2003 (9) TMI 78 - SC - Customs

Anticipatory bail application - Held that - While deciding the application for grant of anticipatory bail the investigating agency concerned has not been given reasonable time to file its objections, this appeal has to be allowed and the matter be remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration after hearing both the parties. We, however, note the argument addressed on behalf of the respondents that the 1st respondent has been cooperating with the investigating agency, as also the argument that the appellants have no authority in law to seek custodial interrogation the application for grant of anticipatory bail ought to be granted. We leave open this question to be decided by the High Court. We also leave open the question whether at this distance of time there is any need at all for the investigating agency to arrest the respondents.

Summary

Issues:
Apprehension of arrest under Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962, granting of anticipatory bail by the High Court, correctness of the procedure adopted by the High Court, sufficiency of notice to the appellants, objections raised by the Department, reasonable time for investigating agency to file objections, need for custodial interrogation, remand of the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration, request for disposal by a different Bench of the High Court.

Analysis:
The respondents moved an application seeking anticipatory bail before the High Court to avoid arrest under Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962. The High Court granted anticipatory bail on certain terms and conditions, which the appellants challenged before the Supreme Court. The appellants contended that they were not given sufficient notice of the bail application and that incriminating evidence was not adequately considered by the High Court. The Supreme Court, after hearing arguments, decided to dispose of the appeal solely on the ground that the procedure adopted by the High Court was incorrect. The Court noted that the investigating agency was not given reasonable time to file objections, and the matter was remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration after hearing both parties.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the investigating agency should have been given an opportunity to present its objections before the grant of anticipatory bail. The Court found discrepancies in the High Court's decision-making process, including the lack of specific denial regarding seeking time before the High Court and the absence of objections from the Department being considered. The Court highlighted the importance of a fair and thorough consideration of all aspects before granting anticipatory bail, especially in cases involving examination of documents.

The Supreme Court, while refraining from delving into the merits of the case, set aside the High Court's order and remanded the matter for fresh disposal. The Court also directed that the case be heard and disposed of by a different Bench of the High Court to ensure fairness and justice. The Court left open the question of whether there was a need for custodial interrogation and the necessity of arresting the respondents at that point in time, to be decided by the High Court during the fresh consideration of the matter.