V.K. JAIN, J. (oral)

1. This is a petition u/s 482 r/w 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the order dated 11.06.09 whereby bail was granted to the respondents by A.C.M.M., New Delhi. The respondents were arrested on 4th June, 2009 under Section 132 and 135 of Customs Act in connection with smuggling of 5010 bottles of foreign liquor and were granted bail subject to respondent No. 1 depositing Rs. 25 lakhs with Commissioner of Customs, within a week of his release on bail.

2. It is alleged in the petition that the order granting bail is bad in law as well as on facts as the case involved evasion of customs duty amounting to more than Rs.1 crore and the Learned ACMM did not deal with all the submissions and did not consider the judgment relied upon by its counsel despite noticing them. It has been stated that bail ought not to have been granted to the respondents in view of seriousness of the offence, pendency of investigation and the conduct of the respondents.

3. In Dolat Ram and Others vs. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349, while considering an appeal against the order of the High Court cancelling anticipatory bail granted to the appellants, the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter alia noted as under:-

“4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking the grounds of cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the Court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.”

4. In State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21, which was an appeal against the order of the High Court granting bail to the respondent, the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter alia held as under:

“17. The decisions in Dolat Ram and Bhattacharjee cases relate to applications for cancellation of bail and not appeals against orders granting bail. In an application for cancellation, conduct subsequent to release on bail and the supervening circumstances alone are relevant. But in an appeal against grant of bail, all aspects that were relevant under Section 439 read with Section 437 , continue to be relevant. We, however, agree that while considering and deciding appeals against grant of bail, where the accused has been at large for a considerable time, the post-bail conduct and supervening circumstances will also have to be taken note of. But they are not the only factors to be considered as in the case of applications for cancellation of bail.

21. Therefore, the general rule that this Court will not ordinarily interfere in matters relating to bail, is subject to exceptions where there are special circumstances and when the basic requirements for grant of bail are completely ignored by the High Court (See Pawan v. Ram Prakash Pandey; Ram Pratap Yadav v. Mitra Sen Yadav and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan.)”

5. In Rizwan Akbar Hussain Syeed vs. Mehmood Hussain and Another (2007) 10 SCC 368, while considering an appeal against the order of the High Court cancelling the bail granted to the appellant, the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter alia observed as under:-

“7……Cancellation of bail should not be done in a routine manner. Where it appears to the superior Court t