Case Details: Sanjay Kumar Kantilal Jain Versus State of Maharashtra (2025) 31 Centax 88 (Bom.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Revati Mohite Dere & Arun R. Pedneker, JJ.
- Shri Shreya S. Lodha, Adv., for the Petitioner.
- Mrs P.P. Shinde, A.P.P & Shri Saket Ketkar, Special P.P., for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The Petitioner challenged the registration of an offence under Section 135(e)(i)(A) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the consequent summons issued by the customs authorities. It was submitted that the proceedings were unwarranted and without basis. However, based on statements recorded during the investigation, it was prima facie revealed that the Petitioner and his brother were part of a syndicate engaged in the smuggling and sale of gold. The Petitioner’s brother had already been arrested. The authorities contended that further investigation was essential to uncover the entire operation of the syndicate. The offence was found to be cognizable and non-bailable in terms of Section 104(6)(C) of the Customs Act, 1962. The matter was accordingly placed before the Bombay High Court.
High Court Held
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that a prima facie offence under Section 135(e)(i)(A) of the Customs Act, 1962, read with allied provisions, was clearly made out. It observed that the offence was cognizable and non-bailable under Section 104(6)(C) of the Customs Act, 1962, and that custodial investigation was necessary to trace the full extent of the gold smuggling syndicate. Consequently, the Court rejected the Petitioner’s challenge to the registration of the offence as well as to the issuance of summons. The Court also declined to grant anticipatory bail.
List of Cases Cited
- Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) — (2020) 5 SCC 1 — Relied [Para 14]
