SIDHA ABHU IBRAHIM Vs. ASSTT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these two petitions have been ordered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhuj to be released on bail by an order dated 22.3.1985. The Assistant Collector of Customs approached the Court of Session by way of filing two Criminal Revision Applications before the said Court requesting the said Court to revise the orders passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and set aside the order of bail granted by the said learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The petitioners have filed these Special Criminal Applications contending, inter alia, that the order granting bail is an interlocutory order and hence the revision application is not maintainable. The learned advocate Mr. J.G. Shah for the petitioners states that he does not wish to press these Special Criminal Applications at this stage so far as the maintainability of revision applications is concerned and that he will tab up that contention before the learned Sessions Judge. He, however, submits that even though the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed orders on 22.3.1985 directing the petitioners to be released on bail, they have not been able to avail of that order in view of the fact that the learned Sessions Judge while entertaining the revision applications has suspended the said order of release passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. He further submits that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge suspending the operation of the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate may, however be cancelled and the petitioners may be released on bail in pursuance of the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The learned AddI. Public Prosecutor Mr. J.U. Mehta as well as Mr. S. R. Shah. Standing Counsel for Respondent No.1 oppose this request made by the learned advocate Mr. J.G. Shah. But looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to accept the submission made by Mr. J.G. Shah and quash that part of the order of the learned Sessions Judge without entering into the question whether it would be legal and/or proper to suspend the order of bail passed by a Court simply because an application is filed in the higher Court to revise that order. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has imposed several conditions while releasing the petitioners on bail and therefore, if they remain on bail pending the hearing of the revision applications by the learned Session Judge, I do not think that it is going te cause any harm to the prosecution.

(2.) In view of the above, the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kutch at Bhuj in Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 24 of 1985 and 25 of 1985 suspending the operation of the orders. passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 22.3.1985 releasing the petitioners on bail are hereby quashed and the petitioners are directed to be released forthwith on bail in pursuance of the aforesaid orders passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate unless they are required to be detained for any other lawful cause. The learned Sessions Judge should hear the two Revision Applications Nos. 24 of 1985 and 25 of 1985 as soon as possible after the receipt of the copy of this order. He should see that the Revision Applications are given top priority and are heard and disposed of latest before the expiry of ten days from the receipt of the copy of this order.

(3.) Rule made absolute to the above extent in both the petitions. A copy of this order may be handed over to the learned advocate Mr. J. G. Shah for sending them to Bhuj with a special messenger. Rule made absolute.