Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

1.The petitioner being the working partner of one M/s Shri Balaji Oversees, a partnership firm registered in Mumbai dealing in the business of export till 2003 seeks an anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the said Code) for alleged violations of provisions of Customs Act, 1962 (in short the said Act).

2.The brief facts relevant for disposal of the present application are that the petitioner during the period from June 2002 to Jan 2003 exported certain consignments covered under 8 shipping bills wherein the shipping bills covered under Seriall number 1-4 were made to Dubai from Bombay in Dollar value which were assessed by the Customs authorities and thereafter the drawback amount @ 12.25% was credited into the account of the petitioner and the remaining 4 consignments were exported under Repayment of State Credit Scheme (popularly known as the Rupee-Rubal Agreement) for which also the drawback back amount had been credited into the account of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner accordingly withdrew a sum of Rs. 32, 75,000/- but before the remaining amount of Rs. 36,87,493/-could be withdrawn by the petitioner, the respondent/Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (in short DRI) authorities freezed the said account of the petitioner in 2003. On two occasions, the petitioners statement was recorded in April, 2003 and later in April, 2004.

.3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner at many instances made several requests to the DRI to de-freeze his account including the communication

.made on 15-10-2005, 12-11-2005, 08-12-2005 and 06-02-2006 but to no avail and instead was issued summons dated 08-06-2006 and 04-08-2006 from DRI, Delhi requiring the presence of the petitioner which are stated to be complied with on 19-06-2006 and 04-09-2006 respectively by the petitioner. Further, a complaint under Section 173/174 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) was filed by the respondent before the Ld. ACMM, New Delhi for non-compliance of summons. The petitioner sought personal exemption from appearance on medical grounds but the Ld. ACMM issued NBWs against the petitioner. In the meantime, the petitioner filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, Mumbai and subsequently filed a revision petition before the Sessions Court, Delhi against the order of the Ld. ACMM, Delhi wherein the Ld. Sessions Court, Delhi stayed the NBWs and directed the petitioner to appear before the Ld. ACMM, Delhi on 19-12-2007. On 12-12-2007, the Ld. Sessions Court, Mumbai disposed of the said Anticipatory bail application of the petitioner as not maintainable on the ground that the respondent/DRI did not require the petitioner to be arrested and that the offence under Section 135 of the said Act was bailable. On 19-12-2007, the petitioner appeared before the Ld. ACMM, Delhi and was admitted to bail for bailable offence.

4. It is further submitted that the respondent tried to physically lift the petitioner from outside the court of ACMM, Delhi which even led to a scuffle on account of summons being served to the petitioner for appearing before the respondent soon after the court proceedings. It is the case of the petitioner that such recourse was taken by the DRI even before the petitioner could furnish his bail bonds and in spite of having given an undertaking that the petitioner was not required to be arrested. It is averred that the petitioner apprehending arrest in view of the incident of 19-12-2007 filed an anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court, Delhi on 15-01-2008 which was dismissed on 23-01-2008. Hence the present petition wherein this Court was pleased to grant interim protection to the petitioner on his undertaking that he shall join the investigation and appear before the officer concerned of DRI. The DRI was directed to produce relevant material in a sealed cover which was so produced.

.5. Th