2026:BHC-AS:6452 Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 338 OF 2026

1. Shaun Stany Noronha

2. Sushant Kishor Manna ...Petitioners Versus

1. Union Of India

2. State of Maharashtra …Respondents Mr. Aabad Ponda, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Bhomesh Bellam, for the Petitioners.

Smt. Megha Bajoria, Special PP, a/w Chirag Sawant for the Respondent No.1-UOI.

Smt. R. S. Tendulkar, APP for State-Respondent No.2.

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.

Reserved On: 3^rd FEBRUARY, 2026 Pronounced On: 6^th FEBRUARY, 2026 JUDGMENT:-

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties heard finally.

1. This petition calls in question the legality and correctness of an order dated 20^th January, 2026, passed by the learned ARUN RAMCHANDRA Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mumbai, whereby the SANKPAL Digitally signed by A R R A U M N CHANDRA learned Magistrate declined to release the petitioners on bail SANKPAL Date: 2026.02.07 17:44:23 +0530 holding that the offences for which the Petitioners were arraigned, under Section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 (“the Customs Act”), were non-bailable.

2. The petitioners claim to be the employees of Shiny Shipping and Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (“Shiny Shipping”). Shiny Shipping owns multiple vessels including M. V. Tina 4, which is an Inland Vessel registered under the Inland Vessels Act, 1917. The said vessel holds a valid licence for transporting petroleum. Shiny Shipping, according to the petitioners, purchases High Flash High Speed Diesel (“HFHSD”) regularly to fuel the engines of the vessels.

3. Pursuant to an intimation, on 17^th January, 2026, the officers attached to Rummaging and Intelligence Division of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) intercepted M. V. Tina4. During rummaging of the said vessel, approximately 120 KL grey blackish coloured liquid purported to be diesel was found concealed in forward freshwater tank and in service tank. Cash amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was also found concealed in the ceiling of the Master’s cabin. A seizure-memo was drawn.

4. After initial interrogation, and recording of the statements of the petitioners, they were arrested on 20^th January, 2026. The petitioners were served with their grounds of arrest and reasons for arrest. The petitioners were produced before the learned Magistrate.

5. The Petitioners contended that, the arrest of the petitioners was not in conformity with law and the threshold of satisfaction and the pre-conditions for effecting the arrest of the petitioners under Section 104(1) of the Customs Act were not satisfied. Secondly, from the documents annexed to the remand report including the seizure-memo, the grounds of arrest and the reasons for arrest, it became evident that the offences for which the petitioners were arraigned were bailable and, thus, the petitioners deserved to be enlarged on bail.

6. The learned Magistrate found the arrest of the petitioners in conformity with the provisions contained in Section 104 of the Customs Act and the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (“BNSS”). Recording that the offences, for which the petitioners have been arraigned, are non-bailable, the learned Magistrate declined to release the petitioners on bail.

7. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction.

8. I have heard Mr. Aabad Ponda, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners, and, Smt. Megha Bajoria, the learned Special P. P., for respondent No.1 – UOI.

9. Mr. Ponda canvassed a two-pronged submission. First, the arrest of the petitioners was wholly illegal. The test of “reason to believe” was not satisfied. From the perusal of the seizure-memo, the grounds of arrest and the reasons for arrest, it becomes evident that there was, no “material” with respondent No.1 to justify an inference that, the petitioners had committed the offences punishable under Clauses (A), (B) and (C) of Section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act. On t