The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Magistrate has the implicit power to commit a person to custody in cases of non-bailable offences under the Customs Act, and the seriousness of the offence and the larger interest of the State must be considered in deciding bail applications.

In Crl.M.P. Nos. 684 of 1983, 685 of 1983, 694 of 1983 and 695 of 1983 the petitioners therein, who are respondents 1 to 7 herein, were granted conditional bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tellicherry, overruling the objections raised by the Superintendent of Customs, Customs Intelligence Unit, Cochin. The latter has now filed this Crl.M.C. under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'Code') seeking cancellation of the interim bail as well as the regular bail ordered.

2. The facts as can be gathered from the order of the lower Court, the averments in the petition and the submissions made at the Bar, can be summarised as follows :- Customs Officers concerned received information to the effect that contraband articles (smuggled goods) were likely to be landed at the Tellicherry coast on the night of 15-9-1983 or early hours of the morning of 16-9-1983. They organised a customs party and kept the coast line under watch. They found Lorry K.L.N. 4936 moving from the Tellicherry Beach (opposite to the District Court premises) to the main road. The lorry was driven by the second respondent herein Respondents 3 to 5 were in the lorry. The lorry was stopped and the articles in the lorry were checked. The articles were found to be contraband articles consisting of electronic and textile goods, etc. The lorry contained 104 bundles in gunny bags valued at over Rs. 56,00,000/-. The Customs party received information that the first respondent was also involved in the transport of these goods. Tracks of another lorry were found on the beach. The customs party had reason to believe that another lorry loaded with contraband goods has already left the beach. The garages in the town were kept under watch and ultimately Lorry No. MYG 8229 was found on 16-9-1983 in the garrage attached to "Subaida Manzil" The lorry was found to contain 78 bundles of contraband goods valued at over 50,00,000/- rupees. Information was received that respondent 6 and 7 herein were also involved with these goods. On questioning the respondents some more information was received. The Customs Party has reason to believe that even before the apprehension of Lorry K.L.N. 4936 some other contraband goods had been landed and the goods had already been sent to Bombay or on their way to Bombay. The customs party has also reason to believe that some more persons were actually involved in these transactions. It is stated that the respondents as well as others have committed offences punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 (For short the 'Act'), the maximum punishment imposable being rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and fine in some cases and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years or fine or both in some other cases.

3. In due course five respondents were arrested on 18-9-1983 and produced by the petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tellicherry. The other were arrested and duly produced in Court on 21-9-1983. The petitioner made a request for remanding the respondents to judicial custody. The respondents thereupon filed petitions seeking release on bail. Interim bail was ordered initially and subsequently regular bail was also ordered. The learned Magistrate too the view that in regard to person arrested on suspicion of commission of offence under Section 135 of the Act the Magistrate acting under the provisions of the Code has no power to remand them to judicial custody. The learned Magistrate also took the view that there were no circumstances warranting denial of bail to them. Bail was granted with the condition that the respondents should report before the Assistant Collector of Customs at Calicut at 10 a.m. every day and shall not enter the Tellicherry Taluk unless and until otherwise directed.

4. The learned Magistrate took the view that he has no power to remand the respondents to judicial custody on the basis of a decision of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court reported i