JUDGMENT :

1. By preferring this application under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (“Code” for short), the applicant has requested to enlarge him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the summons bearing Sr. No.9919 dated 06.11.2019.

2. This Court, on 11.12.2019, was pleased to issue rule returnable on 15.01.2020 and further was pleased to pass an order that the applicant may not be arrested till the returnable date.

3. Heard learned advocate for the applicant.

4. It is submitted by learned advocate for the applicant that the applicant has never imported the goods nor sold in the Indian Market. That, the said goods are for the re-export purpose only. That, the applicant is doing repairing and refurbishing work and the machines were provided to the applicant for the purpose of repairing and/or refurbishing. That, the applicant has no role to play in the commission of the alleged offence as the applicant is not the importer of the said machines. That, the applicant is sought to be implicated in the commission of the alleged offence for the reasons best known to the department. That, the applicant is innocent person and prima-facie there is no case against the present applicant to implicate him in the commission of the alleged offence. That, the inquiry was initiated against M/s.PVD Enterprise and letter was received by the applicant from said M/s.PVD Enterprise asking to handover their goods within seven days. That, summons were issued to the applicant dated 18.10.2019 and 22.10.2019 by the DRI to remain present for giving evidence and recording statement in the inquiry. That, the applicant remained present before the office of DRI on different dates. That, he was against served with another summons dated 06.11.2019 to remain present on 11.11.2019 before the office of DRI. That, however, the importer is someone else, the applicant is wrongfully treated by the DRI and the applicant would be falsely implicated in the import of the said machinery for which the applicant has no role to play. That, the applicant apprehends his arrest, and therefore, he has approached this Court as bail application preferred before the learned City Session Court, Ahmedabad being Criminal Misc. Application No.7991 of 2019 was dismissed. Learned advocate for the applicant referred to contents of the quashing petition preferred by M/s.PVD Enterprise before this Court and affidavit filed by the respondent no.2 in the aforesaid petition and submitted that the respondent no.2 has also admitted the nature of business. That, the applicant was sufficiently interrogated by the DRI and yet no complaint is registered against the applicant. That, this is a fit case to exercise the power under Section 438 of the Code. In support of his arguments, learned advocate for the applicant has relied upon the judgment in the case of Siddharam Satlingppa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2011 (1) SCC 694. Ultimately, it was requested by him to allow this application.

5. From the other side, learned advocate for the respondent no.2 has strongly opposed the arguments advanced by learned advocate for the applicant and submitted that it is a premature application preferred by the applicant as the investigation is under process. That, right now, no complaint is registered by the department against the applicant. It is further submitted that since only summons were issued to the applicant for recording the evidence in the inquiry, anticipatory bail application is a premature, and therefore, powers cannot be exercised in favour of the applicant by this Court. It is further submitted that under Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962, an officer of custom is empowered in this behalf by general or special order of the Commissioner of Custom where he has reason to believe that any person in India or within the Indian Customs Waters has committed an offence punishable under Section 132 or Section 133 or Section 135 or Section 135(A) or Se