Seek Bail First: SC Sends Customs Arrestee to Calcutta HC

Bail First: Supreme Court Sends Customs Act Arrestee to Calcutta High Court, Other Reliefs Under Article 226

Sanjay Gupta v. Union of India & Ors. Decided 6 November 2026

Published: 6 November 2026 · NyayVidhan · 4 min read

In Sanjay Gupta v. Union of India & Ors., the Supreme Court disposed of an Article 32 writ petition by a man arrested by an officer of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) under Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962. His bail plea had been rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and a later Sessions Court bail application withdrawn. The Court said his first step should have been to get himself released on bail (para 12). It permitted him to seek bail in the Calcutta High Court, to be considered expeditiously, and left his other reliefs to an Article 226 writ petition (paras 13-15).

Key holdings

The Court questioned the resort to Article 32 when the High Court could look into the very same reliefs under Article 226 (para 7).

The petitioner's first step should have been to get himself released on bail (para 12).

He may approach the High Court of Calcutta for bail at the earliest (para 13).

His other reliefs, including the challenge to the arrest, go to an Article 226 writ petition (para 14).

Any bail application is to be looked into expeditiously in accordance with law (para 15).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The petitioner was arrested under Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962 by Respondent No. 3, an officer of the DRI's Indore Zonal Unit, who is also conducting the investigation (paras 1-3). According to his petition, the arrest was made on 6 October 2026 and the case, C. Case No. 91 of 2026, is pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaon, North 24 Parganas, concerning alleged offences under Sections 132 and 135 of the Act (para 4). The Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected his bail application on 27 October 2026 (paras 8-9). He then applied for bail in the Sessions Court, but when the respondents sought time to file a counter and a long date was given, he did not press that application and withdrew it (paras 10-11). In the Supreme Court he invoked Article 32 (para 4).

Questions before the Court (framed by NyayVidhan)

Should a person arrested under the Customs Act come to the Supreme Court under Article 32 when the High Court can look into the very same reliefs under Article 226?
What should have been the petitioner's first step after his bail plea was rejected?
Where are his bail plea and his other reliefs to be pursued now?

Submissions

For the petitioner. The petition sought his release, a declaration that the arrest and continued detention violate Section 187(3) of the BNSS and Articles 14, 21 and 22, and production of the 'reasons to believe' recorded under Section 104(1) (para 4). Its seven questions of law include whether an arrest based solely on a co-accused's statement under Section 108, after a search that yielded nothing, meets that requirement, and whether about 23 hours in DRI control before the arrest was formally recorded violates Articles 21 and 22 (para 5).

For the respondents. The Record of Proceedings shows no appearance for the respondents, and the order records no submission on their behalf.

Court's Findings

Article 32 or Article 226

The Court asked why the petitioner had invoked its writ jurisdiction under Article 32, "more particularly when the very same reliefs could have been looked into by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution" (para 7). The order records no answer and moves on with 'Be that as it may' (para 8). It does not hold the petition not maintainable, and it expresses no view on the arrest or on the seven questions (para 5).

Bail should have come first

The Court took notice of the rejection of bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and of the Sessions Court application withdrawn after a long date was given (paras 8-11). It said: "We believe that the first step at the end of the petitioner should have been to get himself released on bail" (para 12).

Bail in the High Court, other reliefs under Article 226

In such circumstances, the Court permitted the petitioner to go before the High Court of Calcutta and pray for bail at the earliest (para 13). For the other reliefs, he "shall prefer a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution" (para 14). If a bail application is filed, the High Court "shall look into the same expeditiously in accordance with law" (para 15). The order does not grant bail and does not say how the bail application or the writ petition should be decided. The petition and any pending applications were disposed of (paras 16-17).

Legal Principle

The order treats bail as an arrestee's first step (para 12). Where the reliefs sought under Article 32 could be looked into by the High Court under Article 226, the Court sent the petitioner there: bail before the High Court, to be considered expeditiously, and his other reliefs by an Article 226 writ petition (paras 7, 13-15).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

For a person arrested under the Customs Act, the order is about sequence. The Supreme Court's first question was why the petitioner had come under Article 32 when the High Court could look into the same reliefs under Article 226 (para 7), and its view was that bail should have come first (para 12). After a rejected bail plea and a Sessions Court application withdrawn unpressed, the petitioner was sent to the High Court, which is to hear any bail application expeditiously (paras 9-15). His challenges to the arrest, including the 'reasons to believe' under Section 104(1), are to be raised in an Article 226 writ petition (paras 4, 14). The order decides none of them.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.