The Bombay High Court recently criticized a Senior Customs Officer for endorsing a “no-objection” to an anticipatory bail request from an individual implicated in a fraud case involving ₹34 crore. The court emphasized that such conduct was inappropriate for a public servant and summoned the officer to appear before the court on Tuesday.
Justice Madhav J. Jamdar, presiding over a single-judge bench, raised concerns about the equitable application of the law. He pointed out the disparity in how the legal system treats different individuals—citing the arrest of a flat buyer for defaulting on a home loan while an industrialist who borrows ₹22,000 crore faces minimal repercussions, having only to repay ₹6 crore.
During the hearing regarding the anticipatory bail application linked to the alleged customs fraud, the judge expressed dismay over an affidavit submitted by Abhishek Mehra, the Senior Intelligence Officer of the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch at Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House in Nhava Sheva, Raigad. The affidavit indicated that the Customs Department had no objections to granting bail.
Justice Jamdar questioned the authority of the officer to make such a decision, stating, “What gives you the right to determine who should receive anticipatory bail? You are a public servant. The scheme often involves presenting imported goods as coming from a country with a customs duty concession, when they are actually sourced from Saudi Arabia. This is not your personal financial responsibility. How could you submit such an affidavit?”
The judge further remarked on the contrasting treatment of defendants, noting that a poor individual committing theft of ₹500 would be swiftly detained, whereas those committing large-scale financial crimes, like the one involving ₹34 crore, remain unaccountable. He called for the affidavit to be retracted, expressing frustration over the apparent leniency shown towards white-collar criminals.
Justice Jamdar elaborated on the inequities, stating, “When a flat purchaser defaults on a loan, their property is mortgaged and an FIR is filed against them. Conversely, an industrialist who borrows ₹22,000 crore can settle with just ₹6 crore. Is this fairness in the application of the law when public funds are at stake?” He insisted that the Customs Officer be present in court on Tuesday to address these discrepancies.
Omkar Gokhale, a journalist for The Indian Express, is noted for his expertise in legal reporting, particularly concerning the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court, and is regarded as a reliable source for judicial developments in Maharashtra.
