SANTOSH DUGGAL, J. - (1.) IN the petition field under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order passed in revision by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, on 8th May, 1989 whereby he allowed the revision petition filed by the Customs Authorities through the Air Custom Officer and set aside the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi on 17th April, 1989, ordering release of the petitioner on bail.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 3rd January, 1989 for offence punishable under Sections 132 and 135(i)(a) of the Customs Act and Sections 5 of the Imports and Export (Control) Act, on his arrival at Indira Gandhi International Airport, on the allegation that he smuggled gold weighing 349, 500 grams of foreign marking into India, having concealed it and without declaration value of which gold was at Rs. 1,09,393/-. On bail application being filed, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by short order allowed the petition by observing that no useful purpose was going to be served by detaining the accused in custody because the trial was likely to take some time and directed that he be released on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount; one of whom must be local, subject further to the condition that he shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. The department challenged this order by means of a revision petition, which was heard by an Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi. The learned Judge repelled both the arguments, addressed before him, firstly as to the maintainability of the revision petition, and secondly as to the correctness of the order of bail on merits, on the view that on the facts and circumstances of this case, the order of bail could not be treated as interlocutory order so as to bar the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397(2) of the Code and as such the order was revisable and that in view of the fact that the petitioner was a foreign national with no permanent abode or property in India, there was every likelihood of his absconding during trial and as such the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate erred in ordering his release on bail, overlooking the requirement of securing the presence of the accused during trial.
(3.) MR . Mehmood Pracha, Advocate appearing for the petitioner, confined his arguments primarily to the question of maintainability of the revision petition, on the contention that the order of bail was an interlocutory order, and as such there was a clear bar to the maintainability of the revision petition in view of the provisions of Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and thus the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, was liable to be quashed. His main reliance is on the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Amar Nath and others v. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 2185, where while enumerating instances of orders which could be deemed to be interlocutory, their Lordships had mentioned an order of bail to be one of such orders.;