BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

( 1 ). NOTICE. Mr Aggarwal accepts notice. However, he wants that this matter be taken up after two days as he says that the petitioner is involved in evasion of customs duty to the extent of about Rs. 12. 5 crores. He further submits that the petitioner has been absconding and investigation is pending. Mr Aggarwal also relied upon the decision of the Supreme court in the case of Jagtar Singh v Satender Kaur @ bhavana Grover and Ors ?" 2002 (6) SCALE 177 and in particular he has relied upon the sentence of which reads as under: ?onormally, when the accused are absconding, there is no question of granting anticipatory bail or regular bail. ? mr Aggarwal also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Enforcement Officer, TED, Bombay v Bher Chand Tikaji Bora 2000 (121) elt 7 (SC ). He submits that unless the petitioner establishes that he is being unnecessarily harassed by the investigating agency, the court would not be justified in invoking jurisdiction under section 438 Cr. P. C. and in granting anticipatory bail thereunder.

( 2 ) SINCE Mr Aggarwal has made final arguments in this matter and has submitted that the petitioner is not entitled

Click Here to Read the rest of this document