TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (9) TMI 184
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l, the respondent herein on 5-6-1990 at about 7.45 a.m. presented his baggage for Customs export examination at the Trichy airport for boarding Air Lanka Flight UL 132 bound for Colombo. Since his behaviour was not normal, the Counter Officer had reason to believe that he had concealed some contraband in his baggage. On being interrogated whether he had any contraband in his person or baggage, he replied in the negative. Thereupon, the Counter Officer examined his baggage in the presence of two independent witnesses and among other things, it was found to contain three eversilver lamps (Kuthuvilakku). As the lamps appeared to weigh more than what they should normally be, the Officer examined them in detail and found brown colour powder kept....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., learned counsel for the Customs Department/petitioner, would strenuously contend that the order of the learned Sessions Judge releasing the respondent on bail on the facts and circumstances of the case is a sad reflection of the exercise of Judicial discretion, that the primordeal requisites which should be considered for the grant or refusal of bail had not been duly considered whilst granting bail, that, top of all, a bare perusal of the order would bring to the surface that the learned Sessions Judge was rather oblivious of the salient features adumbranted under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 pertaining to grant of bail to persons accused of offences under the said Act, and that, therefore, it is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the State, the Supreme Court held, '.........the High Court should have proceeded to deal with the application for bail on the assumption that the offence was under S. 3 and therefore not bailable. It should have then taken into account the various considerations such as, nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of the evidence, circumstances peculiar to the accused, possibility of his absconding, tampering with witnesses, larger interests of the public and the State and similar other considerations which arise when bail is asked for in a non-bailable offence. The fact that the applicant for bail might not abscond was not by itself a sufficient ground for granting bail.' In Bhagirathisinh Judeja v. State of Gujarat ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....could be cancelled. In the present case the offences alleged are of serious nature. Therefore, the discretion exercised by the High Court does not call for any interference.' In State of Maharashtra v. Anand Chintaman Dighe [1990 (1) (SCALE 25)] the Supreme Court held, '..........Court would not ordinarily interfere with the discretion of the lower court in granting or refusing bail but in case where bail has been granted on irrelevant considerations, such as the status of influence of the person accused and regardless of the nature of the accusation and relevancy of materials on record, Court would not hesitate to interfere for the ends of justice. Each case has to be considered on its own merits. The matter always calls for judiciou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e proceedings, cannot be ruled out. After all Sri Lanka is so near and it is easily possible for a person like the respondent to go there by illicit transport by resorting to travel by a catamaran, which feat could be achieved with ease and grace and without any difficulty whatever. Moreover because of the severity of the punishment for the offence, viz., imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, there is every likelihood that the respondent may flee from justice by jumping bail. Taking into account the gravity and serious nature of the offence, the offenders under the Act are to be dealt with specially in the manner of grant of bail and provision had been made under Section 37 of the Act which reads as follows: '37. Offences ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ely to commit any offence while on bail, then alone such a person can be ordered to be released on bail. As adverted to earlier, the materials collected do prima facie indicate that the respondent is guilty of an offence punishable with ten years of imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. The further question that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, is a matter deserving to be decided in the backdrop of the special device adopted by the respondent for smuggling the contraband out of the country. Judicial notice can also be taken note of the fact that the contraband sought to be smuggled out of the country would fetch ten times the value in India, thereby making the person involved in such clandestine operation get a sizeabl....