The mere issuance of a show cause notice does not justify anticipatory bail; the law provides adequate safeguards against illegal detention.

O R D E R

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 ( BNSS ).

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in a non bailable offence by the officials of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence in connection with a case registered by it following seizure of 2009 grams of gold from Sri.Ejas Muhammed and Sri.Kunji Parambath Muhammed Ansad at Calicut International Airport on 13.03.2024. Apprehending that he would be detained in illegal custody and harassed by the officials of the Revenue Intelligence in the event of arrest, the petitioner has filed this application for anticipatory bail.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the show cause notice issued to him under Section 124 of the Customs Act 1962, Annexure D particularly to the matters mentioned in it concerning the role of the petitioner and submits that there is every chance for his arrest and illegal detention. The learned counsel after referring to the law laid down by the Apex Court inUnion of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal and others [2008 (13) SCC 305] would submit that the facts of this case is totally different and therefore there is no bar in granting an anticipatory bail.

5. The learned Standing Counsel for the DRI opposes the application. It is submitted that going by the ratio in Padam Narain (supra), the applicant is not entitled to claim anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that the apprehension of the petitioner that he would be illegally detained and tortured, if arrested, is without any basis. Accordingly, the learned Standing Counsel seeks to dismiss the petition.

6. Firstly, Annexure D is a show cause notice issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act as part of the inquiry in the matter. For the reason of issuing such a notice, the applicant need not immediately apprehend arrest and detention. Be that as it may, the role of the petitioner as narrated in Annexure D which is on the basis of materials so far collected by the DRI, it cannot be said that without any basis such a show cause notice was issued.

7. Having considered the complicity of the petitioner revealed from such materials so far collected, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner is quite unjustified. The Apex Court in Padam Narain (supra), in fact deprecated granting a blanket order thereby imposing a condition for the arrest. Going by the law laid down in the said decision also the petitioner is not entitled to get an anticipatory bail. The petitioner need not have an apprehension that if, ultimately he is arrested, he would be tortured and kept in illegal custody. The law is definite. In the event of arrest, the arrestee shall be produced before the competent magistrate within a period of 24 hours as enjoined in Section 58 of the BNSS .

Reminding the respondent about the said obligation, this petition is dismissed.