IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35554 of 2010 SURESH MAHTO, Son of Late Baidya Nath Mahto, resident of Village –Chhota Senduri Gajsingh, P.s. Motipur, District- Muzaffarpur ------------------------------ Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA ----------- 6 27-01-2011 Heard Sri Jai Prakash Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Archana Minakshii, learned Counsel for the Customs and Central Excise Department. The petitioner, who is in custody in Customs Case No.15 of 2007 for the offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act, has prayed for grant of bail. In the case, the Customs official on secret information had conducted a search in an unattended Saw Mill, from where huge quantity of red sanders wood valued at Rs.1 Crore (approx.) was recovered. The Saw Mill was closed. After conducting search and seizure the matter was inquired. During enquiry, it transpired that the petitioner was the actual owner of the closed Saw Mill and thereafter he was made accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring number of documents, submits that the petitioner was not having any connection with the Saw Mill in question. However, it was admitted that on earlier occasion, the petitioner had taken the Saw Mill on lease, which expired some time in the year 2005 and thereafter he had no connection with the Saw Mill. He further submits that he has got information under Right to Information Act from the office of 2 the Circle Officer i.e. Annexure-5, from which it is evident that plot in question does not belong to the petitioner. On the aforesaid ground, it has been prayed to grant bail to the petitioner. Smt. Archana Minakshi, learned counsel for the Customs and Central Excise has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. She submits that in this case, counter affidavit was also filed, which brings on record sufficient materials to show that the petitioner was directly involved in the case. At the moment, the Court is not required to see number of documents, but on the strength of complaint petition, it is evident that there is sufficient material against the petitioner. Keeping in view the quantity of recovered Sanders wood, the Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected. However, the court below is directed to proceed with the case expeditiously, so that the case may come to its logical end without any delay. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)