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

Held

The Court held that the petition for anticipatory bail is not maintainable at the stage of issuance of a notice under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. This finding is based on the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India versus Padam Narain Aggarwal and Others, which established that granting bail at such a preliminary stage would amount to impermissible blanket bail. The Court also considered the serious allegations of a substantial financial loss to the State Exchequer, estimated at ₹2.98 crores, and the petitioner's alleged active involvement in the conspiracy, as indicated by the statements of arrested individuals. Even on merits, the Court found the petition liable to be dismissed. The petitioner had received notices from the Customs Authorities on various dates starting from 12.08.2021 but chose to file an anticipatory bail application before the Court of Sessions, which was dismissed on 24.08.2021, before approaching the High Court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Sunil Dutt, a G-Card holder, filed a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail in a complaint case involving offences under the Customs Act, pending before the Customs Commissionerate, Ludhiana. The petitioner's role was described as liaison in the movement of files for clients seeking customs clearance. He handled a file for M/s P. S. Traders, Patiala, concerning an import from Dubai on 08.04.2021. The petitioner claims he was not approached by the party for duty payment and later learned the consignment was removed without payment. He received a notice under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, in April 2021, but did not appear, fearing arrest. The petitioner alleges he was contacted by an Inspector to assist a party and that documents were prepared showing aluminium scrap, whereas 39,60,000 cigarettes were imported without duty. He claims to have made a representation to the Department, leading to action against customs officers, and that he has been falsely implicated.

Key Issues

1. Whether a petition for anticipatory bail is maintainable at the stage when a notice under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, has been issued to the petitioner? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he was merely assisting a party at the behest of a Customs Inspector and was unaware of the actual import. He claimed to have made a representation to the Department upon learning about the illegal import, which led to action against erring officers, thus suggesting he was falsely nominated. He relied on a communication from the Principal Commissioner, CGST, Ludhiana, referencing his statement that he never proceeded with the file after collecting documents. Respondent's (CBIC) arguments: The respondent argued that the petition for anticipatory bail at the stage of a Section 108 notice is not maintainable. They relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India versus Padam Narain Aggarwal and Others, which held that granting bail at this stage amounts to a blanket bail, which is impermissible. The respondent also stated that other individuals, including a Customs House Agent, have been arrested, and their statements indicate the petitioner's active involvement in a conspiracy that caused a loss of approximately ₹2.98 crores to the State Exchequer.