IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 1314 of 2008() ----------------------------- F.NO.SIIB/23/07-CUS OF SIIB BRANCH, CUSTOMS HOUSE, COCHIN. : PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------- AFTAB DAWOOD QURESHI ROOM. NO.9 DAWOOD CHAWA; OPP.FIROZ HOTEL, QURESHI NAGAR, KURLA EAST MUMBAI-70. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AUGUSTIAN SRI.P.K.SHAJU RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CUSTOMS HOUSE, WILLINGTON ISLAND, COCHIN 682 009. BY ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.1314 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of March 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner apprehends arrest on the allegation that he has committed offence punishable under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act. Offence punishable under Section 132 of the Customs Act is a bailable offence; but the one punishable under Section 135 is admittedly a non-bailable offence under the Customs Act. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that he, who had been employed abroad, had attempted to import a Toyota Land Cruiser car into India. It is the specific case of the respondent/ Customs department that there was an attempt to undervalue the car and thus deprive the Government of the revenue which it is entitled to on such import of the car. To facilitate such evasion, it is alleged that the Engine Number and Chasis Number of the vehicle were tampered with. It is the case of the respondent that such tampering was for the purpose of justifying a claim for a lesser liability for payment of customs duty. The vehicle is now detained with the Customs authorities. An inspection of the vehicle has been done and Annexure R1 is the report obtained after examination of the Engine Number and Chasis Number by the Assistant Director, Forensic Science B.A.No.1314/08 2 Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram. It is reported that the Engine Number and Chasis Number of the vehicle were found to be tampered. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged tampering of the Engine Number and Chasis Number cannot be attributed to the petitioner and at any rate, the petitioner does not gain anything by resort to such tampering of the Engine Number and Chasis Number. In short, the contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner had declared the value of the car in such a manner that whatever be the Engine Number and Chasis Number, the respondent/department cannot claim that there was any attempt to evade the customs duty payable. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent/department contends that it would be puerile to assume and accept that the tampering of the Engine Number and Chasis Number is done without any purpose and that by such tampering, the petitioner (or any person on whose behalf the petitioner is acting) did not gain/expect any monitory advantage. The learned counsel for the respondent/department contends that there are reasons to assume that a racket is working on which tries to undervalue the cars imported and thus deprive the Government of amounts B.A.No.1314/08 3 which are legitimately due to them by way of customs duty. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the real value of the Toyota Land Cruiser car is much more than what is declared and and exceeds Rs.40,00,000/-. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the value presently declared is almost equivalent to the value of a brand new car and therefore by no stretch of imagination can it be held that the alleged tampering was for any ulterior purpose. 5. I have considered the very detailed submissions made by both counsel. I have perused the materials placed before me. Suffice it to say that I find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that it would be puerile at this moment to assume that the tampering of the Engine Number and Chasis Number were done without any purpose. Prima facie, it does appear to me that there is merit in the contention in the learned counsel for the respondent that the matter deserves more detailed scrutiny and consideration and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for that purpose. 6. I am not persuaded to agree that there are any circumstances available in this case which can justify or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under B.A.No.1314/08 4 Section 438 Cr.P.C in favour of the petitioner now. I agree with the learned counsel for the respondent/department that this is a fit case where the petitioner must appear before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the normal and ordinary course. 7. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to say, if the petitioner surrenders before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate and applies for bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge B.A.No.1314/08 5 B.A.No.1314/08 6 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007