Bombay High Court
DIPAKBHAI KAKADIYA AND ANRversusTHE UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The court held that no case exists for the grant of anticipatory bail and dismissed the application.
Summary
The applicants sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with alleged customs duty evasion offences under the Customs Act, 1962. The prosecution relied on a statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act by co‑accused Chirag Chamaria, which implicated the applicants as the beneficial owners of a front company used for fraudulent imports. The court examined the credibility of that statement, the substantial financial transactions traced to the applicants, and the need for custodial interrogation in a serious economic offence. Citing Supreme Court precedents that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, especially in economic crimes, the court held that granting bail would hamper the investigation. Consequently, the application for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the applicants under Section 482 BNSS in a case of alleged customs duty evasion.
- Whether the co‑accused's statement under Section 108 Customs Act is sufficient to negate the prima facie case against the applicants.
- Whether the need for custodial interrogation and the seriousness of the economic offence preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether parity with other accused who obtained bail is a valid ground for granting anticipatory bail to the applicants.
- Whether the failure to file a complaint within the 60‑day period under Section 187 BNSS affects the bail application.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 187, 482
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438
- Customs Act, 1962 — s. 108, 135, 135(1)(b), 137(3)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- customs duty evasion
- beneficial owner
- economic offence
- custodial interrogation
- Section 482 BNSS
- Customs Act
- pre‑arrest bail
- money laundering
Judgment
08-ABA-2195-2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2195 OF 2026
Digitally
signed by
ARJUN
ARJUN VITTHAL 1. Dipakbhai Kakadiya …Applicants
VITTHAL KUDHEKAR
KUDHEKAR Date: 2. Brijesh Dipakbhai (Vinodbhai) Kakadiya
2026.09.10
15:40:20 Versus
+0530
The Union of India & Anr. …Respondents
Mr. Parvez Memon a/w Aditya Talpade, Pratik Karande, Akash
Sable, Diksha Talpade & Prajwal Padole, for the Applicants.
Mr. Shyamrishi Pathak a/w Aryan Singh & Sangeeta Yadav, for
Respondent No.1-UOI.
Mr. P. P. Jadhav, APP, for the Respondent-State.
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED: 08 SEPTEMBER 2026
PC:-
1. Heard Mr. Memon, learned Counsel appearing for the
Applicants, Mr. Pathak, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent
No.1-Union of India and Mr. Jadhav, learned APP, for the
Respondent-State of Maharashtra.
2. By this Anticipatory Bail Application filed under Section 482
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Applicants
are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with F. No. SG/MISC-
167/2025-26/CIU/JNCH/PART XI on the file of the Central
Page 1
Arjun
08-ABA-2195-2026.DOC
Intelligence Unit, Mumbai Zone-II, Jawaharlal Nehru Custom
House, Nhava Sheva, for the offences under the Customs Act, 1962
(“Customs Act”).
3. It is the submission of Mr. Memon, learned Counsel
appearing for the Applicants, that there are a total of eighteen
Accused. Twelve Accused have been granted anticipatory bail and
five Accused have been granted regular bail, out of whom one
Accused is the son of the present Applicant. He submits that the
son of the Applicant was in custody for 53 days. In fact, a
statement was made before a learned Single Judge in Criminal Bail
Application No.2933 of 2026 on behalf of the Union of India that
the request for bail made in the said Application be considered, as
the Central Intelligence Unit is not in a position to file the
Complaint within the mandatory period of 60 days contemplated
under Section 187 of BNSS.
4. Mr. Memon, learned Counsel submitted that the only
material on the basis of which custody is sought is the statement of
Co-Accused-Chirag Chamaria recorded on 4 th June 2026. In this
context, he submits that by Order dated 31st March 2026 passed
Page 2
Arjun
08-ABA-2195-2026.DOC
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panvel, in Criminal Bail
Application No.213 of 2026 anticipatory bail was granted to said
Co-Accused-Chirag Chamaria and, as a condition of anticipatory
bail, he was directed to attend the Central Intelligence Unit on 6th
April 2026, 7th April 2026 and 8th April 2026. Learned Counsel
submits that during those three days, nothing was stated by said
Chirag Chamaria regarding the role of the the Applicants in the
crime. However, on 4th June 2026, i.e., more than two months
after obtaining anticipatory bail, said Co-Accused-Chirag
Chamaria, for the first time, disclosed the role of the present
Applicants in his statement recorded under Section 108 of the
Customs Act. It is submitted that the said statement is exculpatory
and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on such statement.
5. Mr. Memon, learned Counsel further submitted that
although it is contended that the Applicants have created various
entities, including M/s ABC Enterprise, the Applicants have a
business relationship with the said M/s ABC Enterprise and have
purchased various goods from said M/s ABC Enterprise. It is
submitted that although it is the case of Respondent No.1 that the
Applicants, through said Chirag Chamaria, created M/s Swastik
Page 3
Arjun
08-ABA-2195-2026.DOC
International, the Applicants have no relationship whatsoever with
said M/s Swastik International or said Chirag Chamaria, including
any business relationship. It is submitted that, pursuant to the
statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act of said
Chirag Chamaria, a search was conducted at the house as well as
the office of the Applicants, however, nothing was found in the
said search. It is submitted that, as all the Accused except
Applicants have been granted either regular bail or anticipatory
bail, the Applicants be granted anticipatory bail on the ground of
parity. It is submitted that, in fact, the statement of the Applicant’s
son has been recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act,
wherein it is stated by the son of the Applicant, i.e., Sneh
Dipakbhai Kakadiya, that the Applicants are not involved in the
crime. It is further submitted that the Applicants are ready to
comply with any conditions and will attend the office of
Respondent No.1 on as many occasions as Respondent No.1
requires him to do so. It is also submitted that, as said Chirag
Chamaria is from Kolkata, the Applicants will not visit Kolkata.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Pathak, learned Counsel appearing
for Respondent No.1-Union of India, submitted that although it is
Page 4
Arjun
08-ABA-2195-2026.DOC
contended that the Applicants have purchased goods from M/s
ABC Enterprise, in fact, M/s ABC Enterprise has paid an amount of
Rs.5,91,00,000/- to M/s Dipak Trading Co., which is a partnership
firm of the Applicant and his brother. It is submitted that although
it is the contention raised that the Applicants are not at all
concerned with M/s Swastik International, which has been floated
by Chirag Chamaria, M/s Dipak Trading Co. has paid an amount of
Rs.8,20,00,000/- to said M/s ABC Enterprise, and said M/s ABC
Enterprise has paid amounts to M/s Swastik International. It is
submitted that Section 2 (3A) of the Customs Act contemplates
that “beneficial owner” means any person on whose behalf the
goods are being imported or exported or who exercises effective
control over the goods being imported or exported. It is submitted
that M/s Swastik International was created by said Chirag
Chamaria and, in fact, the beneficial owners are the present
Applicants. It is submitted that the Applicants are involved in
evasion of duty and, therefore, the same is a punishable offence
under Section 135 of the Customs Act, more particularly under
Section 135(1)(b). It is submitted that the total amount of evasion
of customs duty is about Rs.31 Crores. It is submitted that the
Applicant has one antecedent of a similar nature, in respect of
Page 5
Arjun
08-ABA-2195-2026.DOC
which the offence has been compounded. It is submitted that the
proviso to Section 137(3) of the Customs Act specifically provides
that compounding can be only in respect of one offence under
Sections 135 and 135A of the Customs Act. It is submitted that the
offence is very serious and, therefore, custodial interrogation of the
Applicants is necessary. To support the said contention, learned
Counsel for Respondent No.1-Union of India has relied on the
following decisions of this Court as well as of the Supreme Court:
i. Dipakkumar Dharamsinhbhai Kakadiya v. Directorate of
Revenue Intelligence 1
ii. Mangesh S/o. Ranjit Jagtap v. State 2
iii. Haribhau Dnyandev Chemte v. State of Maharashtra 3
iv. P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement 4
v. Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 5
vi. Harshad S. Mehta v. Union of India 6
vii. Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI 7
1 Anticipatory Bail Application No.1808 of 2025 (Decided on 31/07/2025) Bombay High Court
2 Criminal Application (BA) No.422 of 2020 (Decided on 16/10/2020) Bombay High Court Nagpur
Bench
3 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3181
4 (2019) 9 SCC 24
5 (2024) 12 SCC 382
6 1992 SCC OnLine Bom 553
7 (2013) 7 SCC 439
Page 6
Arjun
08-ABA-2195-2026.DOC
viii. State v. Anil Sharma 8
7. Perusal of the record shows that the Central Intelligence
Unit, JNCH, initiated an investigation on the basis of specific
intelligence regarding well-orchestrated modus operandi involving
large-scale evasion of customs duty, for which purpose deliberate
misdeclaration of the country of origin was made. The
investigation has revealed that walnuts and raisins exported from
Jebel Ali and other ports in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to
JNPT, India, were wilfully misdeclared as being of Afghan origin
with the intent to fraudulently avail the benefit of South Asian Free
Trade Agreement (SAFTA) notifications providing exemption from
Basic Customs Duty at a nil rate.
8. During the investigation, it was found that inter alia the
Applicants are involved in evasion of customs duty. There are
about 28 Parts of the investigation concerning large-scale evasion
of customs duty. As per the prosecution case, the Applicants are
involved in Parts 11 and 22. Part 11 is concerning evasion of Rs.31
Crores in customs duty, whereas Part 22 is concerning Rs.9 Crores
in customs duty. As far as the present Anticipatory Bail Application
8 (1997) 7 SCC 187
Page 7
Arjun
08-ABA-2195-2026.DOC
is concerned, it relates to Part 11, involving Rs.31 Crores.
9. During the investigation, the statement of Co-Accused-
Chirag Chamaria was recorded by the Customs authorities on 4th
June 2026. He stated that he is in the event management business
and is from Kolkata. In the ordinary course of his business, he used
to visit Mumbai for event-related and artist-related meetings.
During one such event in or around 2024, he came into contact
with Mr. Sneh Dipakbhai Kakadiya, i.e., the son of the present
Applicant. Said Sneh Kakadiya attended the event as his guest and
thereafter continued to attend several other events organized or
connected with him. Over a period of time, he developed good
personal relations with Sneh Kakadiya, i.e., son of the Applicant
No.1. He further stated that he was facing severe financial
difficulties in the event management business and due to financial
constraints, requested Mr. Sneh Dipakbhai Kakadiya to guide or
assist him in starting some side business through which he could
earn additional income. Said Sneh Kakadiya suggested to him to
form a firm for carrying out export and import business and, on his
suggestion and assurance, the firm M/s. Swastik International was
formed. He was assured that approximately Rs.20,000/- to
Page 8
Arjun
08-ABA-2195-2026.DOC
Rs.25,000/- per container imported in the name of his firm would
be paid to him. He was also informed that all financial
arrangements, identification and dealings with suppliers,
identification of buyers, transportation, payment of customs duty
and other operational aspects of the import business would be
managed entirely by him and his father, Mr. Dipakbhai Kakadiya.
He further stated that he had no independent financial capacity to
import high-value walnut consignments and that the funds
reflected in the bank account of M/s. Swastik International were
arranged by Sneh Kakadiya or his father, Dikpakbhai Kakadiya,
through various third-party bank accounts that were not directly
connected with them.
10. In view of the statement of said Chirag Chamariya recorded
under Section 108 of the Customs Act, it is relevant to note
Paragraph No. 5(y) of the Affidavit-in-Reply filed by Bhasha Ram,
Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Central Intelligence Unit,
Nhava Sheva-General (NS-Gen), Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House,
Nhava Sheva, Uran, Raigad, Maharashtra, dated 8th August 2026,
which reads as under:
Page 9
Arjun
08-ABA-2195-2026.DOC
“y) The investigation, prima facie, establishes that
the Applicant was the actual beneficial owner and
controlling mind of the import transactions. Examination
of bank accounts and financial records during
investigation has corroborated the statement of Shri
Chirag Chamaria and revealed a pattern of fund routing
through multiple entities before ultimately reaching M/s
Swastik International. The following transactions have
been identified:
Sr. From To Amount (in
No. Rs.)
1 M/s Dipak Trading Co. M/s Akash Enterprises 5,44,68,656
2 M/s Akash Enterprises M/s Swastik International 4,20,00,000
3 M/s Dipak Trading Co. M/s ABC Enterprise 8,20,00,000
4 M/s ABC Enterprise M/s Swastik International 68,25,000
5 M/s ABC Enterprise M/s Dipak Trading Co. 5,91,00,000
6 M/s ABC Enterprise M/s Best Deal Traders 2,50,00,000
7 M/s Best Deal Traders M/s Swastik International 7,60,00,000
The above financial transactions prima facie
demonstrate the use of intermediary entities for routing
funds connected with the import transactions and lend
substantial corroboration to the statement of Shri Chirag
Chamaria that the imports were financed and controlled
by Shri Sneh Dipakbhai Kakadiya and Shri Dipakbhai
Kakadiya while M/s Swastik International functioned
merely as a front IEC holder. The layering of funds
through associated entities indicates a deliberate attempt
to conceal the identity of the actual financiers and
beneficial owners of the imports and necessitated
detailed custodial interrogation to trace the complete
money trail and identify all beneficiaries of the
fraudulent transactions.
Shri Chirag Chamaria has further disclosed in his
voluntary statement that funds were routed through
cash/angadia channels, indicating deliberate
concealment of the true source of funds and beneficial
ownership.”
Page 10
Arjun
08-ABA-2195-2026.DOC
11. Thus, what is relevant to note is that although there is no
direct payment to M/s Swastik International by the Applicants’
partnership firm, i.e., M/s Dipak Trading Co., the said partnership
firm has paid huge amount of Rs.5,44,68,656/- to M/s Akash
Enterprises and said M/s Akash Enterprises has paid
Rs.4,20,00,000/- to M/s Swastik International.
12. It is further significant to note that huge amount of
Rs.8,20,00,000/- has been paid by the Applicants’ firm i.e. Dipak
Trading Company to M/s ABC Enterprise and said M/s. ABC
Enterprise has paid an amount of Rs.68,25,000/- to M/s Swastik
International and Rs.2,50,00,000/- to M/s Best Deal Traders. It is
significant to note that said M/s Best Deal Traders has paid an
amount of Rs.7,60,00,000/- to M/s Swastik International.
13. Thus, prima facie, the statement of said Chirag Chamaria
recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act is substantiated by
the other material collected during the investigation regarding
several transactions with third parties who have made huge
payments to M/s Swastik International. The material on record
further shows that the Applicants’ firm M/s. Dipak Trading Co. has
Page 11
Arjun
08-ABA-2195-2026.DOC
made huge payments to these third parties.
14. Thus, although, it is the contention of learned Counsel for
the Applicants that the statement of the Applicant’s son has also
been recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and that the
same is required to be taken into consideration, if the statement of
said Chirag Chamaria, who is also a Co-Accused, recorded under
Section 108 of the Customs Act, is being taken into consideration,
it is very significant to note that, apart from the statement of said
Chirag Chamaria recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act,
prima facie, there is material on record which substantially
corroborates the statement of said Chirag Chamaria.
15. As far as the contention that a learned Single Judge has
granted bail to the Applicant’s son is concerned, a specific
statement was made by learned Counsel for Respondent No.1, on
instructions, that Respondent No.1 was not in a position to file a
Complaint within the mandatory period of 60 days contemplated
under Section 187 of BNSS. However, it is required to note
Paragraph No.6 of the Order dated 3rd August 2026 passed by a
learned Single Judge in Criminal Bail Application No.2933 of
Page 12
Arjun
08-ABA-2195-2026.DOC
2026, which reads as under:
“6. Mr. S. R. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel for
Respondent No. 1, in all fairness, on instructions from
the Investigating Officer, Sumeet Bhonsle, Senior
Intelligence Officer, CIU, Mumbai Zone-II, JNCH, Nhava
Sheva, Taluka Uran, Dist. Raigad, who is present in
Court, submits that the Central Intelligence Unit is not in
a position to file the complaint within the mandatory 60
(sixty) days contemplated under Section 187 of the
BNSS, 2023. He submits that one of the reasons for not
completing the said exercise is that the main accused is
absconding. He therefore, on instructions, submits that
the Applicant's request for bail in the present Application
be considered. He submits that this concession is on
instructions and in view of the fact that the other four
(4) accused, similarly situated to the Applicant in the
present crime, have been released on bail.”
(Emphasis added)
Thus, the statement made on behalf of Respondent No.1 is very
specific. As per the said statement, since the main Accused is
absconding, it is not possible to file a Complaint within the
mandatory period of 60 days. The said main Accused are the
present Applicants. There is material on record to show the
involvement of the Applicants in the crime.
16. It is also required to be noted that there is an antecedent of a
similar nature, being F. No. DRI/MZU/F/INT-32/Enq 17/2025 RA
No 485 of 2025. Thus, there is an antecedent involving the same
Page 13
Arjun
08-ABA-2195-2026.DOC
modus operandi of the year 2025. In fact, the Applicants have filed
a compounding application in the said case and has deposited Rs.5
Crores with Customs.
17. The Supreme Court in the decision of Nikita Jagganath
Shetty alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra 9, has
held that the anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and ought
not to be granted in a routine manner. There must exist strong
reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a
person accused of grave offence. It has been further held that while
exercising power to grant pre-arrest bail, the Court has to be very
cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the
accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may
hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes
lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence.
18. The Supreme Court in the decision of P. Chidambaram
(supra), has also held that power under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) i.e. 482 of BNSS, being an
extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in
cases of economic offences. It has been held that economic
9 5 (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1489
Page 14
Arjun
08-ABA-2195-2026.DOC
offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic
fabric of the society. It has been held that, in economic offences,
the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail. It has also been
held by the Supreme Court that grant of anticipatory bail at the
stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in
interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information
and also the materials which might have been concealed. It has
been further held that success in such interrogation would elude, if
the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court.
Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would
definitely hamper the effective investigation.
19. In the decision of State v. Anil Sharma (supra), the Supreme
Court, while setting aside the Order of pre-arrest bail granted by
the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, has held that custodial
interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than
questioning a suspect who is well ensconded with a favourable
order under Section 438 of CrPC. It has been held that effective
interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in
disintering many useful information and also materials which
would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would
Page 15
Arjun
08-ABA-2195-2026.DOC
elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and
insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is
interrogated. It has been further held that very often interrogation
in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual.
20. This is a case where there is prima facie material to show
that, at the instance of the Applicants and son of Applicant No.1-,
Sneh, a firm M/s Swastik International, was formed by Co-
Accused-Chirag Chamaria, and huge amounts were deposited in
the account of said M/s Swastik International through certain
other entities to whom the Applicant’s firm had made substantial
payments. Thus, there is strong prima facie case against the
Applicants.
21. Thus, custodial interrogation in the present case is absolutely
essential.
22. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances, no case is made
out for grant of anticipatory bail.
23. The Anticipatory Bail Application is dismissed.
24. However, it is clarified that the observations made in this
Page 16
Arjun
08-ABA-2195-2026.DOC
order are of prima facie in nature and made only for consideration
of the prayer seeking anticipatory bail.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Page 17
Arjun
Checking your session…