Sunil Dutt vs. Department Of Customs, Customs Commissionerate, Ludhiana And Another

Held

The Court held that the second petition for anticipatory bail is not maintainable. It noted that the petitioner had filed a previous anticipatory bail application which was dismissed on merits. The Court found no change in circumstances to warrant a fresh application. Furthermore, the respondents consistently argued that the petitioner, despite being issued summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, had failed to appear before the Customs Authorities. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India versus Padam Narain Aggarwal and Others, which held that granting bail at the stage of a notice under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, would amount to a blanket bail, which is not permissible. The Court also observed that there were serious allegations of causing a huge financial loss to the State Exchequer, making the petition liable to be dismissed even on merits. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Sunil Dutt, filed a second petition for anticipatory bail. He claimed to be a registered informer for the GST Department and a G-Card holder assisting with customs clearances. The petitioner alleged he unearthed a scam involving the illegal clearance of a consignment by the Customs Department without proper entry. This consignment, when intercepted by the CGST Preventive Wing, contained 39,60,000 cigarettes and 10030 Kgs of iron scrap. The petitioner apprehended action from the Customs Department as the officer who was the Port Incharge during the illegal clearance was now heading the Special Investigative Team. The respondents, including the Department of Customs and the CGST Commissionerate, argued that a successive anticipatory bail application is not maintainable, especially when the earlier one was dismissed on merits. They also contended that the petitioner was issued summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act but failed to appear.

Key Issues

1. Whether a second petition for anticipatory bail is maintainable when the first petition was dismissed on merits and there has been no change in circumstances? This issue turns on the principles governing successive bail applications, particularly anticipatory bail. 2. Whether the petitioner's claim of being an informer and G-Card holder warrants anticipatory bail, despite allegations of his involvement in a conspiracy leading to a significant loss to the State Exchequer? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he is a registered informer who has helped unearth scams and GST evasion, and is also a G-Card holder assisting with customs clearances. He argued that he unearthed the current scam and feared retaliation from the Customs Department. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the second anticipatory bail application is not maintainable as the earlier one was dismissed on merits, citing the Supreme Court's decision in G.R. Ananda Babu vs State of Tamil Nadu. They also argued that the petitioner failed to appear despite summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act and that there are serious allegations of financial loss to the State Exchequer, citing Union of India vs Padam Narain Aggarwal and Others regarding blanket bail at the notice stage.