1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 333 OF 2009 Jang Bahadar Singh Gujral ..... Applicant. V/s Union of India & Ors. ...... Respondents ----- Mr. Shirish Gupte, Senior Counsel, Mr. S. Kantawala, Senior Counsel i/b Mr. Uday Prakash Warunjikar for the applicant. Mrs. A.N. Pai for Union of India. Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for the State. ----- CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 6th February, 2009 P.C.: 1. This is an application for anticipatory bail. Applicant apprehends his arrest for the alleged commission of offence by the applicant under section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Mr. Gupte, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the offence allegedly committed by the applicant is bailable offence and would fall under section 135(1)(ii) and not under section 135(1)(i). It is submitted that each transaction about which allegations are made against the applicant, would be a 2 separate offence, separatebly punishable and would be separately proved even if joint trial is conducted in terms of section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In support of the said submissions, he relied upon the following judgments:- (i) Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay V/s Govindbhai S. Patel & Anr - 1986 Crimes 303 (Bom. HC) (ii) Narinderjit Singh Sahni & Anr.Vs. Union Bank of India & Ors – (2002) 2 SCC 210. (iii) Jodhpur Woollen Mills Vs. State of Rajasthan - 1995 Cr.L.J. 679 (Raj. High Court) It is submitted that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary. It is further submitted that the applicant has visited the office of DRI on number of occasions and he was not interrogated at any time. It is submitted that, in any case, the allegations pertain to documents on which reliance is placed by DRI and, as such, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary. It is further submitted that there was non-compliance of section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code and that the arrested person should be informed about his right to seek bail for bailable offence. He submitted that, that not having been done, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 3 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India invited my attention to the material which is on record and also the averments in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents. 4. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India at length. 5. In my view this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. Taking into consideration the serious allegations which are made in the present application, no case is made out for granting anticipatory bail. It would be difficult at this stage to consider whether the offence allegedly committed by the applicant falls under section 135(1)(i) or 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act and that aspect will have to be taken into consideration after investigation is over. The allegation made against the applicant is that he had entered into conspiracy alongwith others of evading duty by bringing used cars as new cars in India. The invoice which is allegedly issued by those companies do not appear to have been issued by the said companies. The question about joinder of parties and joinders of cases under section 219 also cannot be a question which can be considered at this stage when application is 4 made for anticipatory bail. Hence application for anticipatory bail is rejected. However 8 days time is granted to the applicant to surrender before the concerned authority. (V.M. KANADE, J.)