THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. THE UNION OF INDIA

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BORA, MS. C CHOUDHURY,MR. V A CHOWDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CUSTOMS, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA Date : 28.11.2025 ORDER Heard Mr. A. M. Borah, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. V. A. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the accused applicant as well as Mr. K. Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned standing counsel, Custom Department. Page No.# 2/4

This petition under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the accused- applicant, namely, Mahjubi Parbin, praying for grant of bail in connection with Customs (Anti-Smuggling) Guwahati Division Customs Seizure Case No. 04 /UCL/IMP/AS/GAU/2025-26 dated 25.04.2025 under the Customs Act, 1962.

The gist of allegation against the accused applicant as per the complaint is that a huge quantity of foreign cigarette valued at Rs. 5,60,00,000/- and poppy seeds valued at Rs. 11,41,824/- were recovered and seized by the Customs officials from a godown of Ranjit Sarma who had given the godown on rent to the accused applicant.

It appears that the aforesaid items were seized by the customs on reasonable belief that the consignment of cigarettes of foreign origin and poppy seeds were illegally imported through a route other than those specified under the provision of Section 7(1) (c) and in violation of the provision of Section 11 (and the notification issued there under) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the Provision of Section 7(3) of COTPA, 2023 read with the provision of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 including the orders and Rules made there under, as amended and made applicable to the customs Act, 1962 under Section 3(3) ibid and contravention of provision of FEMA, 1999 which is liable for confiscation under Section 111(b) and (d) of the Customs Act, 1962, hence, seizure effected under Section 110 of the Customs Act 1962.

The aforesaid acts are punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act which is non-bailable in nature.

Learned Senior Counsel for the accused applicant submits that the accused applicant is the fiancee of one of the co-accused, Md. Kaizul Islam Choudhury and on being request made by the aforesaid Kaizul Islam Choudhury, she had entered into a rent agreement for the godown with the owner, Ranjit Sarma. The learned counsel submits that the accused-applicant is totally unaware about the goods stored in the godown and the business that was being done by the aforesaid Kaizul Islam Choudjury. Page No.# 3/4

The learned counsel further submits that the accused applicant has been arrested on

14.10.2025 and for the last 46 days she is behind the bars. The learned counsel submits that since the goods have already been seized and relevant documents were also seized and the investigation is on the verge of completion, further custodial detention of the accused applicant may not be necessary at this stage. The learned counsel further submits that while arresting the accused-applicant, Section 35(3) of the BNSS, which is mandatory in nature, was not complied with. In this connection, the learned counsel referred to section 35(3) of the BNSS, which reads as follows: - “Section-35. When Police may arrest without warrant, arrest any person- (1)............................... (2)................................ (3) The police officer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under sub-section (1) issue a notice directing he person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice. (4)................................ (5)................................ (6)................................. (7)................................. In view of the aforesaid, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the non- compliance of the aforesaid mandatory provision of the BNSS makes the arrest illegal and therefore, in that ground also, the accused-applicant should be granted bail at this stage.

On the other hand, Mr. K. Jain, learned Standing Counsel, Customs Department, submits that the investigation is yet to be completed and a huge quantity of smuggled goods were recovered from the aforesaid godown. Therefore, the learned counsel opposed granting of bail to the accused-applicant at this stage. Page No.# 4/4

This Court has gone through the materials available in the record as well as heard the submissions made by the respective counsel for the parties.

It is relevant to mention herein that vide an order dated 13.11.2025, this Court had rejected the bail application of the present accused-applicant.

This Court, after considering the whole aspect of the matter and taking into account of the fact that the accused-applicant is already in jail for the last 46 days, this Court is of the view that at this stage, the accused-applicant should be allowed to go on bail.

Accordingly, it is directed that the accused-applicant shall be released forthwith on furnishing of bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) each with a surety of like nature to the satisfaction of the learned Court of the CJM, Kamrup (M), subject to the following conditions: - (1) That the accused-applicant shall appear before the Investigating officer as and when called for and fully co-operate in the investigation of the case. (2) The accused-applicant shall not hamper the investigation nor tamper with any evidence or influence any witnesses connected with the case.