Implied power to refuse bail and order custody under customs arrest provisions upheld; jail custody direction sustained.

When a Magistrate is empowered under the Customs Act to grant bail, the implied power to refuse bail and direct lawful custody also follows. The form of custody, whether police, jail or otherwise, depends on the facts, and a jail-custody direction is not illegal merely because the statute does not expressly specify that form. On that basis, the challenge to the Magistrate's order failed and the custody direction was sustained, while the accused was directed to surrender and seek bail through counsel in the proper manner.

---

---

Issues: Whether a Magistrate empowered under section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962 could refuse bail and direct that the arrested person be taken into custody, and whether the order directing jail custody was illegal.

Analysis: Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962 expressly authorises arrest, and when a Magistrate is empowered to grant bail, the power to refuse bail and to order custody is implicit. The nature of custody, whether police, jail or otherwise, depends on the facts and circumstances. On that basis, the order of the learned Magistrate directing jail custody could not be treated as illegal. The court also indicated that the accused should properly move a bail application through counsel after surrendering.

Conclusion: The challenge to the jail-custody order failed, and the Magistrate's order was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The custody direction was sustained, while the petitioner was given time to surrender and seek bail in the proper manner.

Ratio Decidendi: When a statute expressly empowers a Magistrate to grant bail, the power to refuse bail and to direct lawful custody is implied, and such custody order will not be illegal merely because the statute does not spell out the precise form of custody.

---