Bail cancellation in customs smuggling requires proof of arbitrary discretion; continued custody and progressed investigation weighed against interference.

In a customs smuggling matter, the Delhi HC noted that bail may be interfered with only if the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or capriciously. Although there were reservations about unequal treatment compared with another accused in a similar case, the respondent had already spent over 70 days in custody, the investigation had substantially progressed, and there was no material showing risk of absconding or witness tampering. On those facts, cancellation was not warranted and the revision challenging the bail order failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the bail order granted to the respondent in a customs smuggling case deserved to be set aside or cancelled on the ground of improper exercise of discretion and unequal treatment vis-a -vis a similarly placed accused.

Analysis: The respondent was accused of involvement in smuggled ball bearings recovered in large quantity, and statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act indicated his concern with the seized goods. The earlier refusal of bail to another accused in a similar matter, involving comparable goods and a longer period of custody, showed that the impugned bail order was not made on a consistent footing. At the same time, the respondent had already remained in custody for over 70 days, the investigation had substantially progressed, and there was no material showing that his presence at trial could not be secured or that witnesses were likely to be tampered with. Bail is a matter of judicial discretion, but interference is warranted only where the discretion is exercised capriciously or arbitrarily; even then, cancellation is not automatic if no useful purpose would be served and custody has already continued for a significant period.

Conclusion: The bail order was not set aside and the revision challenging it failed.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere with the grant of bail, holding that cancellation was unwarranted in the circumstances despite reservations about the comparative treatment of similar cases.

Ratio Decidendi: Interference in revision with an order granting bail is justified only when discretion is shown to be arbitrary or capricious, and even then bail should not be cancelled where subsequent circumstances make such interference unnecessary in the interests of justice.

---