( 1 ) THIS is a Petition filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code for grant of bail to the Petitioner who is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 132 and 135 (l) (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter REFERRED TO as the Act ). The offence under Section 132 of the Act is bailable and the offence under Section 135 (l) (b) of the Act is non- bailable. The Petitioner was arrested on 4-8-1999 and he has been in judicial custody since 5-8-1999. After completion of investigation a complaint has been Filed in the Court against the Petitioner. Even though the Petitioner filed an application for bail in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge it was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 30-9-1999 observing that the Petitioner is involved in a serious economic offence which has been committed with a cool calculated mind with deliberate designs and with an eye on personal profits regardless of the consequences to the community and nation at large.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the Respondents, on 30-7-1999 smuggled synthetic fabrics of foreign origin and assorted colour bearing foreign markings and measuring 128745. 80 meters and valued at Rs. l,28,74,580. 00 were recovered and seized from the business premises and godowns of M/s. New India Agencies which is a proprietory concern of the accused Shri Anil Mahajan. At the time of raid by the officers of the Customs department the co-accused Shri Naresh Mittal was present. Shri Naresh Mittal was the Executive/authorised Signatory of M/s. New India Agencies and was in charge of its day to day affairs. The Petitioner Shri Anil Mahajan and the co-accused Shri Naresh Mitlal could not produce any document in support in of the legal import of the above mentioned seized goods. The seized goods are notified goods and are covered under Section 123 of the Act. As per a notification issued by the Central Government under Section 123 of the Act, "fabric made wholly or mainly of synthetic yarns" are covered under Section 123 of the Act and hence the burden of proving that the seized goods are not smuggled goods is on the accused. However the accused completely failed to produce any evidence to prove that the seized goods were legally imported. After the arrest of the Petitioner and the co-accused Shri Naresh Mittal an application was moved on their behalf on 6-8-1999 staling that the seized goods had been legally imported against the Bills of Entry produced along with the said application. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate directed the Respondents to verify the said Bills of Entry. . Accordingly the said Bills of Entry were verified but none of the Bills of Entry could be co- related with the seized goods. The Petitioner had tendered a voluntary statement under Section 108 of the Act slating that Bills of Entry were not available at the time of the raid, that the import documents did not contain details of any individual roll of fabric, that he was not aware of the stock position at his branch office at Delhi, that it was not possible to co-relate the seized goods with the import documents and that he was not even aware of the address of the transport companies which transported the goods from Mumbai to Goa - Delhi. The co-accused Shri Naresh Mittal also gave a statement under Section 108 of the Act staling that he was not having any document to support the possession of the imported goods seized from his godowns, that there was no stock register relating to the smuggled fabrics and that no document was available at the time of search by the Customs officers. The Respondents have alleged that the Petitioner Shri Anil Mahajan and the co-accused Shri Naresh Mittal were carrying on their activities in a shady and hush-hush manner. According to the Respondents the seized smuggled goods are liable to be confiscated under Section 111 of the Act. It is also stated that the offences committed by the Petitioner are very grave