##PAGE1##

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010047202026

2026:GAU-AS:6626

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : AB/549/2026

JULEE BEGUM CHOUDHURY

W/O AMJAD HUSSAIN LASKAR, R/O VILL. BERENGA PART II, SILCHAR

788006, CACHAR, ASSAM.

VERSUS

THE UNION OF INDIA

REPRESENTED BY STANDING COUNSEL, CUSTOMS

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. R S SADIAL, MR. M R SODIAL

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CUSTOMS,

BEFORE

HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

ORDER

13.05.2026

Date :

1. Heard learned Counsel Mr. M.R. Sadial for the petitioner Julee Begum

Choudhury who has filed this application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023

with prayer for pre-arrest bail apprehending arrest as summons have been

issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 in connection with Customs

Seizure Case No.11/CL/IMP/AS/GAU/2025-26 dated 31.08.2025 of the Guwahati

Customs Division. The order was passed under Section 110(2) of the Customs

Act, dated 25.02.2026 issued by the Commissioner of the Customs Division,

Page No.# 2/3

Guwahati.

2. The petitioner was to appear before the Customs Department and explain

storing of consignment of 17,250 kgs of Poppy seeds of foreign origin, valued

at Rs.2,58,75,000/- (Two crores fifty-eight lacs seventy-five thousand) in the

godown of Ms. Julie Trading, declaring the same to be tea and sesame seeds.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner

had authorised her husband to use the godown through an authority letter

marked as Annexure- 5. The petitioner was not aware of any of the

consignment and the storage of the same and is not liable to appear before the

Customs department to provide any explanation.

4. Mr. S.C. Kayal, learned Special Counsel of Customs Department assisted by

Ms. M. Deka has raised serious objections, stating that the consignment valued

at more than Rs. 2 Crores have been transported evading customs duties. There

is no apprehension of arrest. Summons has been issued and the petitioner is to

appear before the department to co-operate with the investigation.

5. I have considered the submissions at the Bar. I have also perused the

Case Dairy. It appears that at this juncture, there is no justified ground to

extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. The anticipatory bail petition stands rejected at this stage.

7. Send back the Case Dairy.

JUDGE

Page No.# 3/3

Comparing Assistant