The Bombay Sessions Court has granted anticipatory bail to an alleged mastermind named in a Rs. 1.48 crore customs seizure case involving prohibited goods smuggled from Sharjah.
The bench of Prashant C. Kale (Additional Sessions Judge) has observed that a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused. The discretion is to be exercised on the basis of the available material and the facts of particular case. Evaluating the entire available material carefully, rulings cited by the respondent are not helpful to them. Consequently, appreciating the relevant considerations for grant of anticipatory bail with the present set of circumstances prima-facie case is made out by the applicant/accused for grant of anticipatory bail.
The applicant filed the bail application apprehending the arrest as the respondent conducted search and raid at his cousin’s shop on 16.05.2025 and has seized I-Phones. No copy of panchanama was supplied by the respondent. The case of the prosecution in the nutshell is that, there was recovery of 112 I-Phones, 102 refurbished laptops, 6 Google Pixel phones, 216 pieces of cosmetics and 94,951 grams of tobacco valued at Rs.1,48,79,462/- from 6 passengers arrived from Sharjah at CSMIA, Mumbai on 15.05.2025 at around 21.22 hours.
The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Mumbai Zonal Unit, had opposed the bail plea, alleging that the applicant was involved in a smuggling syndicate and played a key role in orchestrating the operations. The case pertains to the recovery of 112 iPhones, 102 refurbished laptops, 6 Google Pixel phones, 216 cosmetics items, and nearly 95 kg of tobacco from six passengers who arrived at CSMIA, Mumbai, on 15 May 2025.
As per the DRI’s submissions, the six passengers were intercepted at the airport after crossing the green channel, and the prohibited goods—valued at ₹1.48 crore—were recovered during a personal search. All six were arrested but later released on bail. Statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act allegedly implicated the applicant and two others—Waseem Barambia and Mohsin Shaikh—as masterminds.
A follow-up raid was conducted at “Jai Mobile Store” in Pune, operated by the applicant’s cousin, where 11 iPhones were recovered. However, both the applicant and Barambia were reported to be absconding at the time.
Dr. Sujay Kantawala, the applicant’s counsel, argued that the DRI had arbitrarily pooled the value of goods seized from six different individuals only to categorize the offence as non-bailable. The applicant claimed innocence, alleged harassment by authorities, and highlighted the absence of direct documentary evidence linking him to the smuggled goods. It was also pointed out that the goods were recovered from others who had already been granted bail.
The court observed that the DRI had not adequately explained why the value of goods seized from six separate individuals was combined for prosecution purposes. It also noted that all six primary accused had already been released on bail.
Citing various precedents and weighing the principles of fair investigation against the rights of the accused, the court held that a prima facie case for anticipatory bail was made out. The judge stated that custodial interrogation could be avoided by imposing suitable conditions.
Case Details
Case Title: Yash Aswani Versus DRI
Case No.: Anticipatory Bail Application No.1226 Of 2025
Date: 24th June, 2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Adv. Dr. Sujay Kantawala
Counsel For Respondent: SPP Pathak
Juris Hour is a team of young professionals turned legal journalists who are guided by the values enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India and want to create more legal awareness in society by acting as a tool to aid legal reforms by offering a space for constructive criticism of the judiciary.
