C.Surendran, v. Govt. of India
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court rejected a criminal petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. as premature. The Court held that the stage for arrest under the Customs Act had not been reached as the investigation agency intended to examine the petitioner under Section 108 of the Customs Act to ascertain facts before seeking arrest permission.
What did the court decide?
The criminal petition for anticipatory bail is rejected as premature.
What the court decided
*** THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO**
+ CRIMINAL PETITION No.10382 of 2014
% 15.09.2014
#C.Surendran ….petitioner
Vs. Government of India, Rep. by its Spl.Public Prosecutor Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Hyderabad.
…. Respondent !Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K.Sarvabhouma Rao
Counsel for the Respondent: Sri A.Rajasekhar Reddy
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred: 1.AIR 2012 SC 545 2. (1980)2 SCC 565 3 AIR 1996 SC 1042 4 (1998) 9 SCC 348 5 (2004) 7 SCC 558 62005) 4 SCC 303 7(2009) 8 SCC 325 8(2011)1 SCC 694 92008(231) E.L.T.. 397 (s.c.) 102012 (3) Supreme 292 11 (2012)4 SCC 684 12 (2014)2 SCC 171
THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.10382 of 2014
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. given the accusation of non-bailable offences.
Whether it is premature for the Court to consider the plea of anticipatory bail before the examination under Section 108 of the Customs Act is exhausted.
Whether the petitioner is likely to be arrested in a non-bailable offence based on the alleged disclosure statement of a co-accused.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Surendran
- respondent
Government of India, Rep. by its Spl.Public Prosecutor Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
Coram
B.Siva Sankara Rao
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Telangana HC
- Decided on
- · September
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRLP/10382/2014
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court