The court dismissed a petition seeking anticipatory bail in a seizure case involving alleged gold smuggling. Relying on the petitioners' failure to respond to summons, the bench rejected the prayer for bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Prayer for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. rejected and application dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
14.08.2023 (D/L 07) Ct. No.29 (Rejected) (SKB)
CRM (A) 2921 of 2023
In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Seizure Case No.03/IMP/UNCL/BSF/ BGD/CUS/2023-24 of 2023 dated 22.05.2023 under the Customs Act, 1962.
In the matter of : Amal Halder and another
… Petitioners Mr. Susnigdho Bhattacharyya, Ms. Bidisha Chakraborty ... for the petitioners
Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Ms. Rajashree Kundalia, Ms. Aishwarya Rajyashree, Ms. Manosi Mukherjee
… for the Customs Authorities
(Chitta Ranjan Dash, J.)
2
(Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)
2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners accused of smuggling.
Whether the failure to respond to summons under Section 108 Cr.P.C. justifies denying anticipatory bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Amal Halder
Customs Authorities
Chitta Ranjan Dash
Partha Sarathi Sen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
