A Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Court at Uran, Maharashtra, has granted bail to an accused arrested by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) in connection with the alleged smuggling of prohibited e-cigarettes worth nearly Rs. 2.97 crore. 

The court rejected the defence contention that the accused had been illegally detained before his formal arrest but held that continued incarceration was unnecessary as the investigation had substantially progressed, the contraband had already been seized, and no previous criminal antecedents were brought on record. 

Buy Now: Must Cite Cases Laws In GST Notices via Common Portal Related Disputes

Background of the Case

The case arose from an intelligence input received by the DRI alleging that M/s Vihan Impex had imported a consignment through Nhava Sheva Port by falsely declaring the cargo as LED hanging lights while allegedly concealing prohibited electronic cigarettes. During examination of the container, customs authorities recovered 9,840 Yuoto-brand e-cigarettes.

According to the prosecution, while the declared value of the LED lights was approximately ₹32.06 lakh, the concealed e-cigarettes were valued at around ₹2.97 crore. The DRI alleged that the goods had been deliberately misdeclared to facilitate the import of prohibited products in violation of the Customs Act, 1962, leading to the arrest of the firm’s proprietor. 

Defence Alleged Illegal Custody Before Arrest

Dr. Sujay Kantawala, the counsel for the accused sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), arguing that the accused had effectively been detained by DRI officers from the morning of 4 July 2026 but was shown as formally arrested only on 5 July 2026. According to the defence, his movements had been restricted throughout the day, his statement was recorded overnight, and he was not produced before the magistrate within 24 hours of his alleged detention.

Mr. Kantawala further argued that no notice under the BNSS had been served upon him, the panchnama had not been supplied, and all the relevant goods and documents were already in DRI custody. It also relied on an email purportedly received from the overseas supplier claiming that the prohibited goods had been loaded due to an unintentional warehouse error rather than deliberate concealment. The accused maintained that he was engaged in the business of lighting products and had no intention of importing prohibited goods. 

DRI Opposed Bail

Opposing the application, the prosecution argued that the accused had voluntarily appeared before the DRI office after being summoned and was never placed under restraint until his formal arrest on 5 July 2026. It submitted that the accused’s statements were recorded in accordance with law, copies of the seizure documents had been shared by email, and the investigation was still underway.

The DRI also contended that the accused had admitted importing consignments in which prohibited goods were detected and argued that there remained a possibility of tampering with evidence if released on bail. It additionally informed the court that another related consignment had surfaced during the investigation, suggesting a possible connection between different shipments. 

Court Examined CCTV Footage

A significant issue before the court was whether the accused had been unlawfully detained before his formal arrest.

To resolve this dispute, the court examined CCTV footage produced by the DRI. The footage showed that the accused did not enter the DRI office at 10:30 a.m. on 4 July 2026, as claimed by the defence. Instead, he was seen entering the office voluntarily at around 10:30 p.m., accompanied by another individual. The footage reportedly showed him entering normally and greeting officers, with no indication that he had been forcibly brought to the office or kept in custody from the morning.

The court observed that the arrest memo consistently reflected the formal arrest at approximately 9:50 a.m. on 5 July 2026 and found no documentary material supporting the defence allegation that the accused had been in DRI custody since the morning of 4 July. Consequently, it rejected the argument that the accused had not been produced before the magistrate within the constitutionally prescribed period after arrest. 

Court Found Continued Detention Unnecessary

Although the court rejected the defence’s challenge to the legality of the arrest, it considered several factors favouring the grant of bail.

It noted that the prohibited goods had already been seized, the relevant documents were in DRI custody, custodial interrogation had been completed, and the accused had already remained in DRI as well as judicial custody. The court further observed that no previous criminal involvement had been shown against the accused and that the prosecution’s additional allegation regarding another consignment did not contain sufficient particulars establishing its connection with him.

The magistrate concluded that adequate time had already been made available to the investigating agency and that further detention was not warranted, particularly since the accused was a permanent resident of Mumbai and had expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation. 

Bail Conditions

Allowing the application, the court directed the release of the accused on the various conditions.

Firstly, on execution of a personal bond and surety bond of ₹2 lakh.

Secondly, deposit of an additional cash security of ₹5 lakh for one year or until completion of investigation, whichever is earlier.

Thirdly, mandatory appearance before the DRI office every Monday between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. for six months and thereafter whenever called.

Fourthly, furnishing of residential proof and mobile number to the investigating agency.

Fifthly, no tampering with evidence.

Lastly, deposit of passport with the investigating officer within seven days, with the DRI permitted to retain the passport until further orders. 

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Mere ‘Wrong Statements’ in Court Pleadings Can’t Trigger Perjury Prosecution: Supreme Court