ORDER

1. This Criminal Revision No. 476/00 is directed against the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 2.11.2000 whereby the learned Judge has admitted the respondent to bail. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that bail should not have been granted to the respondent since investigation are on and mere deposit of Rs.10 lakhs is not a ground sufficient to enlarge the, petitioner on bail.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the respondent and it has been brought to my notice that Rs.10 Lakhs which the learned Judge require the respondent to deposit was at the request of the accused and was the balance of the duty which according to the Department was payable in respect of the consignment under seizure. It was to secure the Department's monetary claim and also to show bona fide of the accused that the amount was deposited. However, it was not a ground precedent nor was it a condition of bail. The learned Judge, obviously, while considering the application for bail was of the opinion that the respondent, if enlarged, would not in any way cause hinderance in the investigation and would be available for trial as and when required. With these consideration