1987 (12) TMI 53 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the bail order granted to the respondent.
2. Considerations for granting bail to a foreign national.
3. Application of principles laid down by the Supreme Court in granting or canceling bail.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Bail Order Granted to the Respondent:
The Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras, filed an application under Sections 439(2) and 482 Cr. P.C. to set aside the bail order granted by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I.), Madras. The respondent, an Italian national, was found with 20 gold bars valued at Rs. 7,38,610 concealed in a medical band around his waist without a valid permit. The respondent admitted to carrying the gold bars for monetary remuneration. The petitioner objected to the bail primarily on the grounds that the respondent had no roots or contacts in India and was likely to abscond. The Magistrate, however, granted bail with conditions including the detention of the respondent's passport and restrictions on his movement.

2. Considerations for Granting Bail to a Foreign National:
The court scrutinized whether the bail order suffered from any impropriety or serious infirmity justifying its cancellation. The primary concern was the possibility of the respondent fleeing from justice. The court noted that foreign nationals pose a higher risk of absconding compared to nationals of the same country. The respondent had vague claims of business contacts in Madras, which were not substantiated with any details. The Magistrate's order lacked a detailed explanation of how he was convinced that the respondent would not abscond, merely stating that he had examined the respondent in detail.

3. Application of Principles Laid Down by the Supreme Court:
The court referred to several Supreme Court decisions outlining considerations for granting or canceling bail, including the nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of the evidence, and the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice or tampering with evidence. The court emphasized that the presence of the accused for trial and the risk of absconding are paramount considerations. The respondent's status as a foreign national with no substantial ties to India increased the risk of absconding. The court found that the Magistrate's discretion in granting bail was exercised in violation of these principles, necessitating interference in the interests of justice.

Conclusion:
The petition was allowed, and the bail order granted by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was set aside. The court directed the petitioner to complete the investigation without delay and expedite the trial if a complaint is filed.