JUDGMENT - ASHOK AGARWAL, J.:---The petitioner who is the Assistant Collector of Customs and Central Excise, being aggrieved by the order of grant of bail dated the 1st of July, 1987 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhiwandi, in a prosecution under section 135 of the Customs Act, has presented the present Revision Application.

2. On the 28th June, 1987 a truck bearing No. MTV 2168 was intercepted near the petrol pump on Agra Road near Bhiwandi S.T. bus stand and 91 packages of 100% polyester texturised yarn of Korian origin came to be seized. On investigation it was revealed that the respondent No. 1 is a transport agent engaged in smuggling of the aforesaid polyester texturised yarn from Nepal to Seliguri and thereafter to Bhiwandi via Calcutta. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are partners of Archana Transport Company having their office outside the Octroi Naka of Bhiwandi. They owned two trucks which were engaged in transporting the said smuggled yarn from outside the Octroi Naka to various destinations in Bhiwandi and other places. They also owned a godown from where more goods of the aforesaid description were seized. Respondents No. 4 and 5 are drivers engaged by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 for transporting the said goods on their behalf. Respondent No. 6 is an owner of a godown as also a manufacturer of cloth and he used the said yarn for manufacturing his own goods. He also distributes the said goods to third parties. On this godown being searched goods of the aforesaid description were seized.

3. Between the 28th and 30th June, 1987 the statement of the aforesaid respondents came to be recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act. They were arrested on the 30th of June, 1987 and were produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Bhiwandi on the 1st of July, 1987 on which day an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner praying for judicial custody remand till the 14th July, 1987. On that day without there being even a written application on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 to 6 for bail, the learned Magistrate was pursuaded to pass the impugned order of bail. The said order of bail to say the least is a criptic order not supported by any reasons whereby the learned Magistrate was prompted to grant that bail despite the Remand Application of the petitioner being placed before him for grant of judicial custody remand for a period of two weeks. It must be said that the Magistrate as also the Session Judges while either granting or refusing bail must support their Order by cogent reasons and that is all the more so required as their Orders are frequently subjected to scrutiny of this Court. The reasons when given either for granting or refusing bail go a long way in assisting this Court to arrive at a finding as to whether the impugned orders are justified or otherwise. The reasons given would at least indicate what were the factors that had weighed while either granting or refusing bail. Further more as per section 437(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code a Court releasing a person on bail under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of that section shall record its reasons in writing. (Emphasis provided). It is therefore, a statutory obligation cast upon the Court to record reasons in writing. Hence the impugned order granting bail without recording any reasons cannot be sustained.

4. It must be emphasised that once an order of bail is passed under section 437(1), the same cannot be reviewed or revised or set aside by the same authority. The bail can only be cancelled under section 437(5) but such a power can be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances. The power under section 437(5), section 439(2) are necessarily to be sparingly used and under extra -ordinary circumstances as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of (The State v. Sanjay Gandhi)1, reported in A.I.R. 1978 S.C. page 961.

5. In the present case I find that the trial Magistrate was wholly unjustified in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document