JUDGMENT
1. This Criminal Application has been preferred by the original Accused in Remand Application No. 1246 of 1990 filed before the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay, on 4-12-1990 by the Inspector of Customs (Preventive), Marine and Preventive Wing, Bombay. It was alleged that the Department had carried out investigations in respect of the office premises of M/s. Patel Madhavlal Manganlal & Co. (Angadia) and that a large amount of Indian currency an thirteen gold strips had been found. Subsequent to this, further investigations were carried out in the course of which statements of certain persons were recorded and certain other Accused came to be placed under arrest. In the course of the further investigations, it is alleged that the premises of the present Applicant were searched on 1-12-1990. It appears that the Applicant is alleged to have made certain statements to the officers, that they placed him under arrest and that he was produced in the Court on 4-12-1990. The Applicant states that he has immediately retracted in writing the statements that are attributed to him.
2. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, after hearing learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Department and the Applicant’s learned Counsel, passed a detailed speaking order on 5-12-1990, directing the release of the present Applicant on bail in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. It is essential to record that the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had obviously applied his mind to the facts of this case very carefully and to an all important aspect of the matter, namely, the crucial question as to whether the retention of the Applicant in custody was warranted. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has come to the conclusion that the investigations had made considerable headway and that all the necessary material and evidence, which the Department required, were already with them. The present Accused had been implicated on the basis of statements made by two Accountants and that consequently it was not at all necessary to retain the present Accused in custody. In this view of the matter, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate directed his release and imposed certain conditions requiring the Accused to attend the office of the Investigating Authority as indicated in those conditions. The Department thereafter filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 899 of 1990 before the Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay, praying for cancellation of the bail order. The record indicates that the Accused had availed of the bail order one or two days after the Trial Court directed his release and that he continued to be on bail when the application for cancellation of his bail was taken up for hearing before the Court of Sessions. By his reply dated 18-12-1990, the Applicant denied the allegations made against him and contended that there was no warrant for the cancellation of the bail order. The learned Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay passed an order dated 19-12-1990 canceling the bail granted to the Applicant and directing him to surrender to his bail bond on or before 21-12-1990. The Applicant has filed the present application challenging the order of cancellation. My brother Dhade, J. granted ad-interim stay pending consideration of the application.
3. As the application is an urgent one, I have heard the detailed arguments advanced by the respective learned Counsel in this case.
4. Mr. Gursahani, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant, has vehemently contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay has erred in law while interfering with the well-reasoned order of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The first contention of Mr. Gursahani is that where the Trial Court has exercised its discretion and passed a reasoned order that unless the order in question is manifestly erroneous and against the accepted principles, a superior Court would not be justified in interfering with the order. He further submitted that, admittedly, there was no allegation that the Applicant would either abscond or that he would tamper with the Prosecution evidence while on bail and that in this view of the matter, there was no warrant for interference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
5. Mr. Gursahani also relied on several decisions, but I am not reproducing them because the principles relating to the grant of bail and the circumstances in which bail can be cancelled are well-crystallised and do not require elaborate reproduction. It is the application of those principles to the facts of the present case which is essential.
6. Mr. Gupte, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Department, submitted that the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate released the Accused on bail on the very first date of remand and that by doing so, serious damage has been caused to the investigations. According to Mr. Gupte, the Applicant is the brain behind a multi-crore racket relating to illegal hawala transactions and to the disposal of abnormally large sums of money which are the proceeds from smuggling operations. Mr. Gupte contended that unless the Accused was retained in custody for some time and unless the officer are made available on opportunity of interrogating him that the investigations would suffer irreparably, and in the process the case itself would be damaged. To a question from me as to why the retention of the Accused in custody is essential at this point of the investigations, Mr. Gupte stated that the interrogation of the Accused is required to be done along certain lines and that the Accused, if not in custody, would disclose to the other persons the leads the Department has, thereby allowing them to cover their tracks.
7. Mr. Gupte relied on several decisions, with which I am in complete agreement, in support of his contention that the Investigating Authority must be given a reasonable opportunity before the Accused is released on bail. He further relied on the principle that if the grant of bail in the initial stage is itself wrong and unwarranted that the Prosecution does not have to show any special or compelling circumstances for cancellation of that bail order.
8. Normally, I would not have interfered with the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which is a detailed speaking order, wherein the learned Additional Sessions Judge has relied on several observations of this Court and of the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has accepted the statements made on behalf of the Department at face value and has ordered the cancellation of the Applicant’s bail. It is to this limited extent that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has gone wrong, because I have taken the trouble to go through the investigation papers in this case and, having done so, I find that the view taken by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was correct on the special facts and circumstances of this case.
9. The record indicates that the Applicant had been interrogated by the officers for a considerable period of time and that a detailed statement has been recorded by them. What is crucial is the fact that the arrest of this Accused was made long after the investigations had been commenced in respect of several other persons and after the officers had collected all the material and evidence which they required. This arrest was, therefore, a sequel to that investigation and came as a result of it. It took place at a point of time when the Department had already gathered the evidence which it required. Also, by that stage, the partners of the Angadia firm had already been arrested and released on bail. In this view of the matter, merely because it is mechanically contended before the Court that the officers require the Accused in custody, the Court would not be justified in upholding that contention unless the Department could factually justify the correctness of its demand.
10. On a perusal of the present record, I am fully satisfied that the retention of the Accused in custody at this point of the investigation is unnecessary, and consequently, that the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought not to have interfered with the order releasing the Accused on bail.
11. While it is essential that Courts should provide Investigating Authorities with reasonable time to carry out their investigations, it is equally necessary that the Courts strike a correct balance between this requirement and the equally compelling consideration that the curtailment of the liberty of a citizen cannot be done unless the facts and circumstances completely justified it. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dated 19-12-1990, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 899 of 1990 is set aside. The order of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Remand Application No. 1246 of 1990 dated 5-12-1990 stands confirmed.
12. On 24-12-1990, I have dictated the operative part of the order which shall form part and parcel of this order.