1. Being aggrieved by the condition imposed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs while granting bail to the petitioners herein, in bailable offences, they have approached this Court seeking intervention.

2. Essential facts for disposal of these petitions are stated below:-

The petitioners herein were apprehended at the Cochin International Airport, Cochin, on various dates, for either smuggling Gold or foreign currency by concealing it in their checked in baggage with a view to evade payment of customs duty legally leviable on it. Admittedly, the market value of the currency/gold was much below Rs.50 lakhs. Their voluntary statement was recorded by the Superintendent of Customs, Air Intelligence Unit, Cochin and they were paced under arrest. The offences alleged against the petitioners are, inter alia, under Sections 132, 135 (a), (b), (c) of the Customs Act, 1962. The offences alleged are non-cognizable and bailable. Being bailable offences, the officer proceeded to exercise powers under Section 104 (3) of the Customs Act and grant bail to the petitioners by Annexures-A2 and A3 orders produced in all these cases. The conditions imposed are identical and the same is extracted below for easy reference.

1. Two persons to stand surety, on whose behalf the petitioner/accuse shall be released on bail.

2. Petitioner shall report to the Superintendent of Customs, Air Intelligence Unit, Nedumbassery on 10th day of every month between 10 am and 2 pm until the case is finally decided.

3. Petitioner shall report to the investigating officer as and when required.

4. Petitioner shall not, during the period of this bail, get involved in any offence.

3. Sri. Premjith Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the offences being bailable, the petitioners can, as of right, claim to be released on bail. Referring to Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962, it is submitted that for the purpose of releasing an arrested person on bail, a customs officer is subject to the same provisions as the officer-in-charge of a police station and as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is the submission of the learned counsel that imposition of Condition Nos.2, 3 and 4 is illegal and could not have been imposed by the customs officer.

4. I have heard the Sri.Sasthamangalam S. Ajith Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

5. Provisions as regards bail can be broadly classed into 2 categories: (1) bailable cases and (2) non-bailable cases. In the former class, grant of bail is a matter of course. It may be given either by the Police officer in charge of a Police station having the accused in his custody or by the Court. The customs officer in exercise of powers under Section 104 is exercising the very same powers of an officer in charge of a Police station as provided under Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. Section 436 of the Code reads as follows:-

436—In what cases Bail may be taken

(1) When any person other than a person accused of a non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station, or appears or is brought before a Court, and is prepared at any time while in the custody of such officer or at any stage of the proceeding before such Court to give bail, such person shall be released on bail:

Provided that such officer or Court, if he or it thinks fit, [may, and shall, if such person is indigent and is unable to furnish surety, instead of taking bail] from such person, discharge him on his executing a bond without sureties for his appearance as hereinafter provided:

[Explanation. -- Where a person is unable to give bail within a week of the date of his arrest, it shall be a sufficient ground for the officer or the Court to presume that he is an indigent person for the purposes of this proviso.]

Provided further that nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 116[or section 446A