Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010100112025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1075/2025 SAYAD ALI LASKAR S/O MONUHAR ALI LASKAR R/O CHAKCHANDPUR, LAKSHMISAHAR, HAILAKANDI, P.O. CHANDPUR,P.S. HAILAKANDI, DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REP BY THE DRI, AT GUWAHATI, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BARBHUIYA, MS A BEGUM,MS S R MAZARBHUIYA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, DRI, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 05.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. A. M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Deka, learned counsel for the DRI. 2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sayad Ali Laskar, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with DRI Case No. 26/CL/IMP/CIG/DRI/GZU/2024-2025 under Page No.# 2/4 Sections 110/104/135 of the Custom Act, 1962. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that the Union of India represented by the Intelligence Officer, DRI, has filed a complaint before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M), inter alia, alleging that on receipt of information from relevant sources that one vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-26-C-9100 would be carrying huge quantity of foreign made Cigarette, a search team was constituted and the said truck was intercepted. During search of the said truck, cigarettes which are suspected to be foreign made of various brands were recovered therefrom. Accordingly, a complaint under Sections 110/104/135 of the Customs Act was filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and the offences involved in this case does not prescribe punishment more than seven years and, therefore, he submits that the petitioner is entitled to get notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS in this case. He further submits that the petitioner came to know about the case when he got information regarding seizure of his vehicle in connection with the aforesaid case. He also submits that, in the meanwhile, the Trial Court has granted zimma of the said vehicle to the petitioner. However, he is apprehensive that if he appears before the DRI to seek zimma of the said vehicle, he may be arrested. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to co-operate in the investigation and the nature of this case is such that his custodial interrogation may not be necessary. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the DRI has produced the records of this case and has submitted that the interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for fair completion of the investigation. However, in spite of several Page No.# 3/4 notices/summons issued to the petitioner under Section 108 of the Customs Act, he has failed to appear before the Investigating Officer and, therefore, she opposes the grant of anticipatory bail in this case. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the records produced by the learned counsel for the DRI in this case. 7. It appears from records that the DRI had issued summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act to the petitioner on several occasions, however, he has failed to appear before the DRI in pursuant to the summons. The learned counsel for the DRI, however, submits that on one occasion the petitioner has appeared before the DRI to seek zimma of the seized vehicle. 8. After perusal of the materials on record, this Court is of considered opinion that since the offences involved are not punishable for a term of imprisonment more than seven years, if the petitioner co-operates in the investigation, his custodial interrogation may not be necessary. 9. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Investigative Officer of DRI in connection with the aforesaid case within ten days from the date of this order and co-operate in the investigation. If he does so within the stipulated period of time, in the event of his arrest in connection with the aforesaid case, he shall be allowed to go on bail of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) only with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the arresting authority with following conditions:- (i) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any Page No.# 4/4 inducement, threat or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts of the case before the Investigating Officer; (ii) That the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation; 10. This anticipatory bail application is accordingly disposed of. 11. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant