SWAN KHER GULSAN Vs. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A controversy has been projected by learned Counsel in this case, who has within a very short time re-applied to this Court for reconsideration of the quantum of bail granted by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of Bombay. The four applicants, who are students, were arrested on 19-2-1993 by the Airport Police on charges of having been found in possession of gold worth approximately Rs. 16,00,000/- to Rs. 18,00,000/- each. Accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4, who are Indian Nationals and students studying in Pune were granted bail in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and cash deposit of Rupees 1,00,000/-; whereas accused No. 2, who is from Burma, was granted bail of Rupees 3,00,000/- with surety and in the alternative Rs. 2,00,000/- cash deposit. The applicants approached the High Court for reduction of bail amount, but this Court declined to interfere with the order dated 8-4-1993 and granted liberty to the applicants to re-apply to the trial Court. On 16-4-1993, they filed an application before the trial Court which came to be rejected relying, principally, on the judgment in Criminal Appln. No. 2144 of 1986. There is an observation that the power for reducing the bail amount is vested in the superior Court only. Apart from this, the learned Magistrate has also indicated that it was essential not to reduce the bail amount in order to avoid the accused absonding.

(2.) SINCE learned Counsel on both sides have pointed out that the view prevalent before the trial Court is that the Magistrate do not have the power to reconsider at a later point of time an application for reduction of bail, it is necessary to set out the correct position in law. While it is true that the subordinate Courts do not possesses inherent powers, it is equally necessary to record that they do have the jurisdiction in the circumstances that are set out below to reconsider the question because it is effectively a de nova application for bail since the applicant is in custody.

(3.) AN application was filed before this Court which was heard on 8-4-1993 for modification of the bail order granted by the trial Court. I was not inclined to interfere with that order, but I granted liberty to the applicants to re-apply to the trial Court "after some time". The application was withdrawn. Thereafter, an application was immediately moved before the trial Court on 16-4-1993, which the learned Magistrate rejected on 19-4-1993. Unfortunately, in spite of specific directions contained in the earlier order dated 8-4-1993,whereby the petitioners were granted liberty to move the trial Court once again for reconsideration, the learned Magistrate has defiantly rejected the application on the ground that, according to him, he has no power to reconsider his earlier order. This position is wholly incorrect in law and in cases where an order is an interlocutory order, circumstances would certainly exist and arise whereunder an applicant is entitled to request the Court for reconsideration. It is certainly in order for a Court to point out that once an application has been rejected unless there are new or compelling grounds, that a party ought not to re-apply within a very short span of time.