Bail order for a customs offence set aside where the record showed a non-bailable charge and prosecution notice was omitted.

Bail granted on the mistaken assumption that the offence was bailable could not be sustained where the remand report showed a non-bailable offence under the Customs Act. The record indicated a charge under Section 135(1)(C), and the trial court granted bail without considering the remand report and without issuing notice to the prosecution. In that situation, prior hearing of the prosecution was necessary before bail could be granted. The bail order was therefore set aside, and the accused was required to proceed before the trial court in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether bail granted under Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be sustained when the remand report showed that the accused was booked for a non-bailable offence under the Customs Act and no notice was issued to the prosecution.

Analysis: The bail order was passed on the mistaken premise that the offence was bailable. The remand report, however, showed that the accusation was under Section 135(1)(C) of the Customs Act, which is non-bailable. In that situation, notice to the prosecution was necessary before granting bail, and the trial court had proceeded without considering the remand report.

Conclusion: The bail order could not be sustained and was set aside in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the bail order succeeded, and the accused was required to proceed before the trial court in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail granted on the assumption that the offence is bailable cannot stand where the record shows a non-bailable offence and the prosecution was not heard before the order was passed.

---