S.M. SIKRI, J.

(1) BY order, dated 21/07/1969, the Chief Presidency Magis- trate, Bombay, allowed bail to Nainmal Punjaji Shah and Ghampalal Punjaji Shah, respondents before us. The State of Maharashtra filed a revision petition before the High court. The High court modified the order in certain respects. Against that order, after obtaining special leave, the State of Maharashtra has appealed.

(2) THE question before us is whether on the facts and circumstances of of the case the order of the High court should be maintained or modified in any manner. Ordinarily this court does not go into these questions but, as will be presently seen the facts in this case are extraordinary and this court felt that the matter should be looked into by it.

(3) THE relevant facts leading to the order of the High court may be set out in brief. On 13/04/1969, in pursuance of information received) business premises of M/s. Shah Nainmal Champalal& Co. at 61, Krishna Niketan, 3rd Floor, Motta Mandir compound, were searched. Nainmal Punjaji Shah, who was a partner of the firm, was present and three silver bars were found in the premises. Incriminating documents were found con- cealed in a ledge outside a window of a room in the premises. 71 bars of silver were found in the godown of the firm which was in the ground floor of the building. A cursory scrutiny of the documents seized revealed, accord- ing to the prosecution, that the said Nainmal Punjaji Shah, with several others, was concerned in illegal transactions in foreign wrist watches, textiles, Mettalic yarn, gold, etc., and these transactions ran into about Rs. 100.00 crores.

(4) ON 14/04/1969, Nainmal Punjaji Shah was arrested. It is alleged by the prosecution that on that day Nainmal offered bribe to one Somers of Revenue Intelligence. This fact was, however, not mentioned in the application for remand filed on 14/04/1969. On this day the Addi- tional Chief Presidency Magistrate remanded Nainmal to custody till 28/04/1969. On Ap 22/04/1969, Nainmal applied for bail. This appli- cation was rejected by the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate that very day.

(5) IN the meantime Somers is alleged to have reported the offer of bribe to the Deputy Collector who sent the report to the Director of Revenue Intelligence whose head-office is in Delhi. On 17/04/1969, the Director is alleged to have made an endorsement. On 25/04/1969, one Chandra- kant Joshi is alleged to have made a statement regarding the offer of bribe.

(6) WE may state that Mr. Chari objects to the alleged statement of 25/04/1969, being taken into consideration.

(7) ON 27/04/1969, statements were recorded of various Customs Officers regarding this offer of bribe. According to the prosecution attempt was made on behalf of the respondent to fabricate evidence at this stage. The landlord of the office building wa¯ induced to issue a notice pre-dated 9/04/1969, taking objection to their certain heavy packages in their above office. This was done in order to establish that Nainmal had no option except to store 71 bars in the godown. We may mention that according to the declaration given under the Customs (Amendment) Ordinance (I of 1969), the godown had not been declared as a storing place of silver.

(8) ON 28/04/1969, the prosecution prayed for further remand to custody of Nainmal and Nainmal filed another application for bail. The Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, on the same day remanded Nainmal to custody.

(9) ON 5/05/1969 Nainmal applied again for bail. This was reject- ed on 6/05/1969. At this stage one letter from one K. S. Nathi was received by the Deputy Director of Revenue Intelligence giving information that Nainmal would abscond. We may discard this letter from further consideration because the identity of K. S. Nathi has not been established yet.

(10) ON 12/05/1969, another remand application was made. On this, however, Mr. Dhruv, Acting Chief Preside