The court ruled that a bail order confirmed by a higher court cannot be revoked by a co-ordinate bench without new evidence and proper procedures.

1. This purports to be a petition under S.482 and S.439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - herein after referred to as 'the Code'.

2. Petitioner was arraigned along with another person for offences punishable under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the Act). Petitioner was the first accused and the other person was accused No. 2. Shortly stated, the case against them was that on 11-2-1992 at about 1.45 p.m. petitioner and accused No. 2 were going by a scooter, with accused No. 2 being on the driver's seat and petitioner on the pillion seat. They were stopped by the officers of the Ist respondent and searched. At the foot of the driver were two plastic bags which contained a sum of Rs. 5,99,900/- in currency notes. A search of the person of the petitioner was taken and therein was found a match box containing three Mandrex Tablets and a sticker having on it a number and some particulars of an Airway bill. Petitioner and accused No. 2 were taken to the New Customs House and on 13-3-1992 were produced before a Magistrate. The said Magistrate remanded them into custody till the next day. On 21-2-1992, petitioner and accused No. 2 were produced before the Special Court at Bombay constituted under the Act and presided over by Judge Gupta. Petitioner and the 2nd accused moved applications for bail and the said applications were allowed. The order passed by Judge Gupta in relation to the petitioner sets out the above factual position plus a summary of what he had stated when interrogated by the authorities under S. 67 of the Act. The reasoning for the grant of bail is to be found in para 3 of the said judgment, which reads as follows : -
"Whatever statement the appellant made before the Customs Officers were retracted by him on the very first day he was produced before the Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Therefore if his statement is kept aside, for the time being, there is nothing to connect the applicant with the alleged export of the Mandrex Tablets to Nairobi. The cash of Rs. 5,99,900/- was recovered from below the legs of one Treveni Singh (accused No. 2). The prosecution till date has not been in a position to connect this amount with the sale proceeds of the Mandrex Tablets, already exported some time in the months of December, 1991 and January, 1942. Moreover it is not the case of the prosecution that it was recovered from the possession of the applicant. The prosecution has not been in a position to connect the Air India Cargo Sticker with the goods already exported sometime in December, 1991 or January, 1992. The only material implicating the accused are the three Mandrex Tablets recovered from his possession. Before the Customs Officers, he initially said that the three tablets were for his personal consumption and subsequently changed his statement by saying that the same were the sample to be shown to other persons. Which of these two statements are true is open to debate; that is apart from the fact that the statements itself has been retracted. In any event, the accused has only to account for the possession of the three Mandrex Tablets. The provisions of S. 27 of the NDPS Act, 1985, shall be open to him. During the last seven days, the applicant was in custody, the prosecution has not interrogated him even for one day. I do not find any justifiable reasons to detain him in custody."
The order granting bail to the petitioner was challenged by the 1st respondent vide Criminal Application No. 828 of 1992. The said application came up before a Division Bench, and, on 31-3-1992, the said Bench rejected the application opining as follows : -
"The Assistant Collector of Customs (P) seeks