The petitioner must demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of arrest to be granted pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and compliance with summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act is mandatory.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Learned Advocate, Ms. Sancheti, waives service for Respondent No.1-DRI and learned APP, Mr. Patel, waives service for Respondent No.2-State.

2. This is an application by the petitioner, filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in brief, ‘the Code’), seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with the inquiry, being F.No. DRI/AZU/CI/ENQ-58(INT-18)/2023, as he apprehends his arrest.

3. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution in capsulized form are that the officers of Respondent No.1 received an intelligence in-put that container Nos. DRYU9982719, NLLU4207620 and TGHU9180934 are carrying some contraband goods, instead of the goods, which were declared in the Import General Manifest (‘IGM’, in short). On receipt of such an intelligence in-put, the consignments in question were ordered to be put on hold, till the transshipment permission is given by the Customs Authority. It, however, appears that out of the total three containers, two containers bearing Nos. DRYU9982719 and NLLU4207620, were transferred to Inland Container Depot (‘ICD’, hereinafter), Bangalore, whereas, the container bearing No. TGHU9180934 was transferred to Chennai Port.

3.1 Subsequently, when the containers in question were traced and were opened, they were found to be carrying areca or beetle nuts, instead of grinding wheels, as was declared in IGM and bill of lading by its importer, namely M.S.K. Engineering Works, and therefore, the same came to be confiscated, as per the provisions of Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 (‘Customs Act’, hereinafter).

3.2 Pursuant to the same, Respondent No.1-DRI initiated, as stated above, an inquiry. During the course of recording of statement of one Mr. Satish Kumar T., in connection with the aforesaid inquiry, he admitted that he received the copy of bill of lading on Whatsapp through one Mr. Aakash, who, according to Mr. Satish Kumar T. is a native of Gujarat, but, is currently residing at Delhi. Mr. Satish Kumar T. also allegedly admitted that he had given the credentials, i.e. IEC. GST. Etc., of M.S.K. Engineering Works to said Mr. Aakash. According to Mr. Satish Kumar T., he also had received phone calls, inquiring about consignment of areca or beetle Nuts, from one Mr. Abbas, i.e. the present petitioner. Mr. Satish Kumar T. is also alleged to have admitted that he knew that areca or beetle Nuts were being imported, under the pretext of importing grinding wheels in the name of M.S.K. Engineering Works. Mr. Satish Kumar T. also allegedly admitted that he was promised by Mr. Aakash to be paid Rs.10,00,000/- per container. However, according to Mr. Satish Kumar T., he has never met either Mr. Aakash, who claimed to be a native of Gujarat, or Mr. Abbas, who also claimed to be a resident of State of Gujarat.

3.3 Pursuant to the statement given by Mr. Satish Kumar T., as mentioned herein above, a private complaint is lodged by an officer of Respondent No.1-DRI, namely Mr. Anil Kumar, before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, under Section 135 of the Customs Act. Thereafter, Respondent No.1-DRI issued as many as five summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, which are produced as Annexure-F to this petition, to the present petitioner to remain present for giving his statement and to supply relevant documents. However, since, the petitioner apprehends that he may be arrested, he has not appeared before Respondent No.1-DRI, so far. Hence, the present petition.

4. Learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Barot, appearing with learned Advocate, Ms. Chokshi, for the petitioner referred to the facts of the case on hand and submitted that the name of the petitioner is disclosed, in this case, from the statement given by one Mr. Satish Kumar T. during the course of inquiry. It was, further, submitted that the petitioner is a businessman and on perusal of the statement of Mr. Satish Kumar T., at the most, the role that can be attributed to the present petitioner is that he h