QAMARUDDIN Vs. R P SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedare Code, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order passed in revision by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, on 8th May, 1989 where by he allowed the revision petition filed by the customs authorities through the Air Custom Officer and set aside the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi on 17th April, 1989, ordering release of the petitioner, on bail.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 3rd January, 1989 for offence punishable under Sections 132 and 135 (i) (a) of the Customs Act and Section 5 of the Imports and Export (Control) Act, on his arrival at lndira Gandhi International Airport, on the allegation that he smuggled gold weighing 349.560 grams of foreign making into India, having concealed it and without declaration, value of which gold was at Rs. l,09,393.00 . On bail application being filed, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by short order allowed the petition by observing that no useful purpose was going to be served by detaining the accused in custody because the trial was likely to take some time and directed that he be released on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000.00 with two sureties in the like amount ; one of whom must be local, subject further lo the condition that he shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

(3.) The department challenged this order by means of a revision petition, which was heard by an Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi. The learned judge repelled both the arguments addressed before him, firstly as to the maintainability of the revision petition, and secondly as to the correctness of the order of bail on merits, on the view that on the facts and circumstances of this case, the order of bail could not be treated as interlocutory order so as bar the revisional jurisdiction undersection 397(2) of the Code and as such the order was reviseable and that in view of the fact that the petitioner was a foreign national with no permanent abode or property in India, there was every likelihood of his absconding during trial and as such the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate erred in ordering his release on bail, overlooking the requirement of securing the presence of the accused during trial.