1988 (10) TMI 50 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Cancellation of bail order
2. Violation of Section 437(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code
3. Adequacy of investigation time for drug trafficking cases
4. Acceptance of surety by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

Detailed Analysis:

1. Cancellation of Bail Order:
The High Court initiated suo motu proceedings to cancel the bail orders granted by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to the respondents. The respondents were arrested for possession and trafficking of brown sugar, a serious offense under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Court emphasized the gravity of the offense, noting that the accused were part of an international drug trafficking gang and had previously engaged in similar activities. The Court found that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had not adequately considered the severity of the offense or the potential for the accused to abscond or reoffend. The Court concluded that the bail orders were issued hastily and without proper consideration of the statutory obligations and the seriousness of the crime, warranting their cancellation.

2. Violation of Section 437(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code:
The Court noted that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate failed to comply with Section 437(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which mandates recording reasons in writing when granting bail. The prosecution argued that the bail orders were in violation of this statutory requirement and that the Magistrate had issued "cryptic orders" without addressing the critical points raised by the Central Excise Department. The Court agreed with this assessment, indicating that the lack of detailed reasoning in the bail orders was a significant procedural lapse.

3. Adequacy of Investigation Time for Drug Trafficking Cases:
The Court highlighted the complexity and seriousness of investigating drug trafficking cases, which often involve well-organized international gangs. It was noted that the accused were involved in a deep-rooted conspiracy to smuggle large quantities of brown sugar, and the investigating agency required sufficient time to uncover the full extent of the criminal activities. The Court criticized the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for not granting adequate time for investigation before releasing the accused on bail, thereby undermining the efforts of the enforcement agencies.

4. Acceptance of Surety by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate:
The Court questioned the propriety of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in accepting Mukesh Chhotalal Shah as a surety for two accused persons for a large sum of rupees four lakhs. Shah, being from Baroda and not domiciled in Maharashtra, posed a risk in terms of recovering the surety amount if the accused absconded. While acknowledging that accepting an out-of-state surety is not illegal, the Court emphasized that it is imprudent and risky, given the difficulties in recovering large sums from individuals whose assets lie outside the jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The High Court, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, cancelled the bail orders granted to the accused. The Court underscored the need for judicial prudence in dealing with serious offenses like drug trafficking and the importance of adhering to statutory requirements when granting bail. The decision reflects a commitment to ensuring justice and maintaining the integrity of the legal process in the face of organized crime.