Case Law Details
In re Rahul Kumar (Calcutta High Court)
The Calcutta High Court granted bail to the petitioner in a case arising under the Customs Act after permitting a short period of further custodial investigation. The petitioner was arrested on 27.11.2025 and had remained in custody since then. He contended that he was falsely implicated and that there was insufficient material connecting him with the alleged offence, while the investigating authorities were seeking continued detention without adequate justification.
The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) opposed the bail plea, relying on documents collected during investigation and alleging misdeclaration of seized goods. It was also submitted that another accused had been arrested on 01.01.2026 and that joint interrogation of both accused persons was necessary to ascertain the truth. The investigating agency placed the relevant records before the Court to support its request.
The Court considered the statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and observed that, even assuming the statement to be correct in its entirety, further custodial detention beyond joint interrogation was not warranted. Taking into account the period already spent in custody and the need for limited further investigation, the Court granted the investigating agency ten additional days to conduct checks, cross-checks, and other official investigative activities.
The Court directed that upon completion of this period, the petitioner be released on bail on 13.01.2026 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Calcutta, on such terms and conditions as deemed fit. Directions were also issued for the petitioner’s production before the Magistrate on the specified date and for consideration of conditions suggested by the DRI at the time of release. The petition was accordingly disposed of, with ancillary directions to ensure compliance by jail authorities if required.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Affidavit-in-opposition filed by the DRI Authority and the Affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner be kept with the record.
Mr. Edulji, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested on 27.11.2025 and since then he is in custody. Learned Senior Advocate submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in connection with the instant case and there are hardly any materials to connect the present petitioner with the offence. In spite of the same the Investigating Authorities are trying to detain the petitioner for reasons best known to them.
Learned advocate for the DRI Authority and Union of India opposes the prayer for bail. Learned advocate for the DRI Authority has placed the records particularly the documents which have been collected in course of the investigation and emphasized on the factum of misdeclaration being made in respect of the goods seized and the subsequent search and seizure carried out by the DRI Authorities. The Investigating Agency has placed all the documents which have been collected in course of investigation and submitted that on 01.01.2026 one of the accused person has been arrested and the Investigating Agency requires to interrogate both the accused persons in order to unearth the truth.
I have taken into account the statement under section 108 of the Customs Act of the present petitioner and if the entirety of the same is taken to be true, I am of the view that after the joint interrogation, if required, between the petitioner and the other accused who has been arrested only a day before, the petitioner should be released on bail.
Accordingly, I grant 10 days time from date to the Investigating Agency to check, cross-check and/or carry out their official activities for the sake of investigation and having regard to the tenure for which the petitioner has already been in custody, I direct the learned CJM, Calcutta to release the petitioner on bail on 13.01.2026 on such terms and conditions as the learned CJM deems fit and proper. The learned CJM, Calcutta is directed to fix 13.01.2026 as a date for production of the present petitioner before the Court.
Both the parties would present themselves before the Court through their learned Advocates. The conditions which the DRI Authorities would pray, should be considered by the learned CJM at the time of release of the petitioner.
With the aforesaid directions CRM (R) 167 of 2025 is disposed of.
In case, there is non-cooperation from the Jail Authorities, the same be brought to the notice of the learned CJM, Calcutta who would pass stringent direction upon the Jail Authorities.
All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
Author Bio
