The Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) at Patiala House Courts has remanded an accused woman, Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Sai Anne to 14 days of judicial custody in a high-value customs seizure case involving gold, silver, platinum and luxury watches allegedly worth Rs. 5.51 crore.
The bench of Chief Judicial Magistrate Mridul Gupta has stated, “the averment that the accused/ applicant was actually arrested on night of 18.02.2026, being in custody of the department when her statement was recorded, does not derive merit in view of the settled position of law that upon enquiry or examination under Section 108 of Customs Act, and giving of statement by a person against whom such enquiry is being held, such person does not stand in the character of a person accused of an offence and cannot be held to have come into custody and detention of the officer amounting to arrest.”
According to the Department of Customs, the accused was apprehended late night on February 18, 2026, at Indira Gandhi International (IGI) Airport after allegedly crossing the green channel upon arrival from Hong Kong.
Customs officials claim that undeclared gold, silver, platinum and luxury watches collectively valued at ₹5.41 crore were recovered from her possession. The department described the alleged offence as a “grave economic offence” and informed the court that the investigation is at a nascent stage.
The prosecution sought judicial custody, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the need for further investigation.
Senior counsel appearing for the accused argued that her custody was illegal and that she had effectively been in the department’s custody since February 18, 2026. The defence pointed to alleged discrepancies in the panchanama proceedings and detention receipts, particularly concerning dates.
It was also submitted that summons dated February 19, 2026 were received only on February 20, 2026. Further, the defence contended that the grounds of arrest were supplied only on February 21, 2026 and not within the statutory timelines.
Counsel emphasized that the accused had cooperated with authorities, and that any statements recorded were voluntary.
Countering these claims, the department submitted that the accused was apprehended on the night of February 18, 2026, and that panchanama proceedings began the same day and concluded on February 19, 2026.
The prosecution stated that although the accused initially declined to sign certain documents citing health issues, she later signed the panchanama on February 20, 2026 after speaking with her husband. It was further submitted that the entire proceedings were videographed.
Customs authorities informed the court that the accused was formally arrested on the evening of February 20, 2026. She was thereafter taken for medical examination, during which her blood pressure was reportedly found elevated. She was discharged from the hospital the following morning.
The department also submitted that grounds of arrest were duly supplied. No injury was recorded in the medico-legal certificate (MLC). No allegation of custodial torture was made. The accused’s husband was informed about the arrest. The Investigating Officer completed all legal formalities and justified the grounds of arrest.
After hearing both sides and perusing the record, the court observed that the grounds of arrest had been supplied to the accused and that no material was placed to show that the same were furnished belatedly.
The court noted that the case diary entry dated February 20, 2026 reflected the provision of grounds of arrest. It further held that there was nothing on record to prima facie establish illegality in the arrest.
On the issue of whether the accused had been effectively in custody prior to formal arrest, the court relied upon settled legal principles that a person appearing for inquiry or examination under Section 108 of the Customs Act does not automatically assume the character of an accused in custody.
The order cited precedents including Ramesh Chandra Mehta vs. State of West Bengal and Veera Ibrahim vs. State of Maharashtra, holding that giving a statement during inquiry does not amount to detention equivalent to arrest.
The court concluded that, in light of the overall facts and circumstances and considering that the matter is at an initial stage of investigation, sufficient grounds existed for remanding the accused to judicial custody.
Accordingly, the court remanded Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Sai Anne to 14 days’ judicial custody. She has been directed to be produced before the court on March 7, 2026.
The application for judicial custody remand was disposed of with directions that a copy of the order be supplied to the Investigating Officer.
