1987 (8) TMI 114 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Cancellation of bail order granted to respondents 1 to 3 by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
2. Validity of the arrest of respondents 1 to 3 in connection with smuggling activities.
3. Balancing the liberty of the accused with the need for a thorough investigation into the crime.
4. Interpretation of Section 59 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding discharge and rearrest of accused individuals.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The Assistant Collector of Customs sought the cancellation of the bail order granted to respondents 1 to 3 by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The respondents were involved in a smuggling attempt where contraband goods worth over Rs. 50 lakhs were seized. The petitioner argued that granting bail could hinder the investigation, especially considering the value of the goods and the respondents' past involvement in similar activities. The court agreed that the bail order needed to be cancelled to facilitate further investigation into the crime.

2. Respondents 1 to 3 were arrested in connection with the smuggling attempt involving gold bars and watches. Initially, their arrest was deemed illegal due to lack of grounds provided, but upon rearrest with proper grounds, their detention was considered valid. The court emphasized the importance of investigating such offenses to prevent economic harm to the country and ensure justice.

3. The court highlighted the need to balance the personal liberty of the accused with the necessity of a thorough investigation. It was noted that casual reporting during specified hours, as directed by the bail order, could not replace custody remand in aiding a comprehensive investigation. The court prioritized the investigation over the liberty of the accused in this smuggling case.

4. The interpretation of Section 59 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was crucial in determining the legality of the rearrest of respondents 1 to 3. The court analyzed the provision and rejected the argument that the rearrest was illegal based on the principle of ejusdem generis. It was concluded that since the initial arrest was found to be illegal, the proper course was discharge or a special order, not bail. Consequently, the bail order was cancelled, and respondents 1 to 3 were directed to be taken into custody for further proceedings, allowing them to apply for bail after the specified period.