Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Bombay allowed a criminal writ petition challenging the denial of bail to petitioners accused under the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners, employees of a shipping company, were arrested after diesel and cash were found on their vessel. The Magistrate held the offences non-bailable under Section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act. The High Court found the arrest illegal due to lack of 'reason to believe' under Section 104(1), with arrest memos showing omnibus references. It also ruled the offences bailable under Section 104(7), as the seized goods' value did not exceed Rs. 1 Crore and no relevant notification was issued. The Court quashed the bail denial, directing release on bail with conditions, emphasizing procedural fairness and personal liberty.
Headnote
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in Criminal Writ Petition No. 338 of 2026, addressed the legality of arrest and bail denial under the Customs Act, 1962 -- The petitioners, employees of Shiny Shipping and Logistics Pvt. Ltd., were arrested on 20 January 2026 after interception of M.V. Tina4, where approximately 120 KL of diesel and cash were seized -- The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mumbai, declined bail, holding offences under Section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act as non-bailable -- The High Court, per N.J. Jamadar, J., examined the arrest under Section 104(1) of the Customs Act and the classification under Section 104(6) and (7) -- The Court held that the arrest lacked 'reason to believe' as required, with omnibus references in arrest memos indicating non-application of mind -- Further, the Court found the offences bailable under Section 104(7) of the Customs Act, as the value of seized goods did not exceed Rs. 1 Crore and no notification under Section 135(1)(i)(c) was issued -- The bail denial was quashed, and petitioners were directed to be released on bail with conditions -- Paragraphs 1, 5, 9, 10, 12
Issue of Consideration
The Issue of whether the arrest of the petitioners under the Customs Act was legal and whether the offences were bailable or non-bailable for bail purposes
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Magistrate's order denying bail, held the arrest illegal due to lack of 'reason to believe', classified the offences as bailable under Section 104(7) of the Customs Act, and directed the petitioners to be released on bail with conditions such as furnishing a personal bond and surety, and cooperating with the investigation
Law Points
- Interpretation of Section 104(1) of the Customs Act
- 1962 regarding 'reason to believe' for arrest
- Classification of offences under Section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act as bailable or non-bailable
- Application of Section 104(6) and (7) of the Customs Act for bail eligibility
- Principles of personal liberty and procedural fairness under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- 2023 (BNSS)
- Judicial review of arrest legality and bail decisions in writ jurisdiction
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (02) 30
Criminal Writ Petition No. 338 of 2026
Mr. Aabad Ponda, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Bhomesh Bellam for Petitioners, Smt. Megha Bajoria, Special PP a/w Chirag Sawant for Respondent No.1-UOI, Smt. R. S. Tendulkar, APP for State-Respondent No.2
Shaun Stany Noronha, Sushant Kishor Manna
Union Of India, State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging bail denial under the Customs Act, 1962
Remedy Sought
Petitioners seeking release on bail and quashing of the Magistrate's order holding offences non-bailable
Filing Reason
Aggrieved by the Magistrate's order dated 20 January 2026 denying bail due to classification of offences as non-bailable
Previous Decisions
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mumbai, declined bail on 20 January 2026, holding offences under Section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act as non-bailable
Issues
Whether the arrest of the petitioners under Section 104(1) of the Customs Act was legal and satisfied the 'reason to believe' threshold
Whether the offences under Section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act are bailable or non-bailable for bail purposes under Section 104(6) and (7)
Submissions/Arguments
The arrest was illegal as it lacked 'reason to believe' under Section 104(1) of the Customs Act, with arrest memos showing omnibus references to offences
The offences are bailable under Section 104(7) of the Customs Act as the value of seized goods did not exceed Rs. 1 Crore and no notification under Section 135(1)(i)(c) was issued
Documents like the Sharani Associates report and DGFT notification were unreliable and did not justify non-bailable classification
Ratio Decidendi
Arrest under Section 104(1) of the Customs Act requires a clear 'reason to believe' based on material evidence, and omnibus references in arrest memos indicate non-application of mind rendering the arrest illegal -- Offences under the Customs Act are bailable under Section 104(7) unless they fall within specific clauses of Section 104(6), such as exceeding value thresholds or involving notified goods, which were not satisfied in this case -- The Court emphasized procedural fairness and protection of personal liberty in bail decisions
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Magistrate declined to release the petitioners on bail holding that the offences for which the Petitioners were arraigned, under Section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act, were non-bailable
Such omnibus reference to the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners, in the alternatives, indicates that the arrest did not satisfy the threshold of the reasonable belief that the petitioners had committed the offences
Once, the offence does not fall within the ambit of clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (6) of Section 104, the residuary sub-section (7) of Section 104, which declares all other offences under the Customs Act as bailable, comes into play
Procedural History
Petitioners arrested on 20 January 2026 after seizure of diesel and cash from M.V. Tina4 -- Produced before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mumbai, who denied bail on same day -- Petitioners filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 338 of 2026 in High Court challenging the order -- High Court heard arguments on 3 February 2026 and pronounced judgment on 6 February 2026, allowing the petition and directing bail
Acts & Sections
- Customs Act, 1962: Section 104(1), Section 104(6), Section 104(7), Section 135(1)(i), Section 132, Section 133, Section 135A, Section 136, Section 11
- Inland Vessels Act, 1917:
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS):
