Mohammed Sabith P.P. vs. Union Of INDIA
Held
The High Court noted that the petitioners were not yet accused and their apprehension was misconceived. The application was closed with a direction that if their presence is needed for investigation, fresh summons would be issued, which they must honor.
Facts
The petitioners filed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. after receiving summons from the Customs Department. The Customs Department objected, stating that the petitioners had not yet been arrayed as accused.
Key Issues
Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to individuals who have received summons from the Customs Department but have not yet been formally arrayed as accused.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
This is an application for anticipatory bail under Secti
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.