1989 (11) TMI 42 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Legal authority of Sessions Court to stay the operation of a Magistrate's bail order.
2. Jurisdiction of Sessions Court in cancelling bail.
3. Statutory period for release on bail under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case is whether the Sessions Court has the legal authority to stay the operation of a Magistrate's bail order. The petitioners, accused under the Customs Act, were released on bail by a Magistrate but the Assistant Collector of Customs filed a Criminal Revision Application for cancellation of bail. The court highlighted that the power to cancel bail is an extraordinary step that requires an inquiry into supervening circumstances justifying cancellation. The judgment emphasized that the Sessions Court lacks the power to make an interim order of cancellation of bail, as it is a final decision after hearing both parties. The court cited a similar view held by the Allahabad High Court in Rameshwar Prasad.

2. The judgment also addressed the jurisdictional aspect of the Sessions Court in cancelling bail. It clarified that while there are instances where bail orders may need to be suspended due to fraud or gross impropriety, the power to prevent abuse of process or secure justice lies with the High Court's inherent powers, not with the Sessions Court. The court concluded that the Sessions Court's order staying the Magistrate's bail order was without jurisdiction.

3. Another crucial issue dealt with in the judgment is the statutory period for release on bail under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court noted that since the investigation did not pertain to offenses punishable by death or life imprisonment, the accused were entitled to bail if the charge sheet was not filed within sixty days. However, due to the interim stay granted by the Sessions Court, the accused had been detained beyond the statutory period. The court held that the accused should be released on bail as per the statutory provision, regardless of the stay granted by the Sessions Court. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside to ensure compliance with the statutory provisions.

This judgment clarifies the limitations of the Sessions Court in interfering with bail orders, emphasizes the necessity of following due process in cancellation of bail, and underscores the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for release on bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure.