Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010047202026 2026:GAU-AS:6626 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/549/2026 JULEE BEGUM CHOUDHURY W/O AMJAD HUSSAIN LASKAR, R/O VILL. BERENGA PART II, SILCHAR 788006, CACHAR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY STANDING COUNSEL, CUSTOMS Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. R S SADIAL, MR. M R SODIAL Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CUSTOMS, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 13.05.2026 1. Heard learned Counsel Mr. M.R. Sadial for the petitioner Julee Begum Choudhury who has filed this application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for pre-arrest bail apprehending arrest as summons have been issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 in connection with Customs Seizure Case No.11/CL/IMP/AS/GAU/2025-26 dated 31.08.2025 of the Guwahati Customs Division. The order was passed under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, dated 25.02.2026 issued by the Commissioner of the Customs Division, Page No.# 2/3 Guwahati. 2. The petitioner was to appear before the Customs Department and explain storing of consignment of 17,250 kgs of Poppy seeds of foreign origin, valued at Rs.2,58,75,000/- (Two crores fifty-eight lacs seventy-five thousand) in the godown of Ms. Julie Trading, declaring the same to be tea and sesame seeds. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had authorised her husband to use the godown through an authority letter marked as Annexure- 5. The petitioner was not aware of any of the consignment and the storage of the same and is not liable to appear before the Customs department to provide any explanation. 4. Mr. S.C. Kayal, learned Special Counsel of Customs Department assisted by Ms. M. Deka has raised serious objections, stating that the consignment valued at more than Rs. 2 Crores have been transported evading customs duties. There is no apprehension of arrest. Summons has been issued and the petitioner is to appear before the department to co-operate with the investigation. 5. I have considered the submissions at the Bar. I have also perused the Case Dairy. It appears that at this juncture, there is no justified ground to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6. The anticipatory bail petition stands rejected at this stage. 7. Send back the Case Dairy. JUDGE Page No.# 3/3 Comparing Assistant