Case: Sayyed M. Masud Vs. Union of India &amp; Another

2. The writ petition had been filed, inter alia, on the question as to whether an offence Under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, would be bailable. The same will be evident from Paragraph (1) of the writ petition. However, in the writ petition itself reference has also been made to investigation undertaken under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, as far as the Petitioner and his Company, M/s. City Limouzines (India) Limited, were concerned. of course, the main prayer in the writ petition was for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to declare the offence under Section 135(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 as a bailable offence, which question was, at that point of time, pending determination in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 74 of 2010, titled as Choith Nanikram Harchandani v. Union of India, (2011) 14 SCC 1 WP (Cri.) No. 74 of 2010, decided(SC) sub nom Om Prakash v. Union of India, (2011) 14 SCC 1 : (2011) 11 Scale 310 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 1249 It may be indicated that, subsequently, in Om Prakash v. Union of India, (2011) 14 SCC 1 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri.) 1249 : (2011) 11 Scale 310. this Court held that the offences under the Customs Act were bailable.

Court's reasoning:
3. It is on the basis of such averments and submissions made that we were given the impression that the alleged offences in respect of which the writ petition had been filed were confined to the provisions of the Customs Act alone. However, in the petition for stay of arrest, the Petitioner prayed for stay of arrest in connection with theof File No.(MDB) RKP//ECIR/65/MZO/2010. Having regard to the context in which the writ petition was alleged to have been moved, we had, by our Order of 11th March, 2011, Sayyed M. Maud v. Union of India, WP (Cri.) 57 of 2011, order dated(SC) stayed the arrest of the Petitioner in connection with theof the said file, presuming that the same would be relating to the offences under the Customs Act, 1962.However, in the petition for vacating the said interim order, it has now been brought to our notice that theof the said file has nothing to do with the offences under the Customs Act but under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, and Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, referred to hereinabove, in respect of which we have not expressed any opinion regarding the bailability of offences thereunder.