* 1 * B.A.1578-2011 9.11.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1578 OF 2011 Deputy Director Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Mumbai Zonal Unit, Mumbai ....Applicant v/s. Ajit Babu Satam and Ors. ....Respondents * * * * * Mr. Francis E. Saldanha, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. V.B. Singh and Mr. A.K. Singh, Advocate for the respondent. Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for the State. CORAM :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 9th November, 2011. P.C. :- 1. This is an application filed by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence for cancellation of bail granted to respondents no.1 to 5 by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai vide order dated 26th September, 2011. The conditions accompanying the order of grant of bail are (i) attendance by respondents no.1 to 5 to the department of the applicant for a period of one month for interrogation, (ii) direction not to * 2 * B.A.1578-2011 9.11.2011 tamper with the prosecution witnesses and to co-operate with the investigation, (iii) restrain from leaving India without prior permission of the Court and (iv) detention of the passports with the applicant. 2. Mr. Saldanha, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that respondents no.1 to 5 have been involved in very serious offences of smuggling of red sanders outside the country by hijacking sealed containers containing genuine export consignments. According to the applicants, respondents no.1 to 5 and a few others have been running a very organised syndicate for the activity of smuggling of red sanders. He submits that the total quantity of red sanders so far seized in the three containers about to be exported was of 50.360 Mts valued at Rs.5.03 crores. The search operations conducted at various residential and office premises of respondents no.1 to 5 have revealed recovery of large sums of money, incriminating documents and property documents. The applicants have also during investigation seized embossing machine, plain bottle seals without any markings, broken bottle seals, metal dies containing insignia of various customs and central excise offices, metal fonts, stamping foils, numeric dies all used for making duplicate bottle seals. It is further pointed out that respondents no.1 and 2 had been earlier arrested for similar offences in the year 2006 and 2008. 3. Respondents no.1 to 5 were arrested by the applicant on 2nd September, * 3 * B.A.1578-2011 9.11.2011 2011 and were in their custody untill 26th September, 2011 when they were granted bail by the trial Court. While granting the order of bail, the trial Court found that the entire investigation was based upon the documents and the documents are infact now in the custody of the applicant. Therefore, there was no necessity to detain respondents no.1 to 5 in jail. Besides, during the judicial custody of respondents no.1 to 5 for more than 22 days, the applicant had recorded only two statements of respondents no.1 to 5. The trial Court further noted that respondents no.2 to 5 were not present at the spot at the time of seizure of the container for export which was tampered with. The trial Court found that for the purpose of further investigation there was no need to keep respondents no.1 to 5 behind bars. 4. In the present application for cancellation of bail, there are no allegations made against respondents no.1 to 5 either of abuse of the liberty granted to them or of breach of the conditions imposed by the order of bail. Mr. Saldanha, submits that the applicant apprehends that respondents no.1 to 5 may tamper with the prosecution witness. He also points out that two of the accused persons i.e. one Ravi Vaikar and Santosh Shinde are absconding. Perusal of the application, shows that these two grounds have not even so much as stated in the application for cancellation of bail. One of the grounds, however, of the two absconding accused was taken up before the * 4 * B.A.1578-2011 9.11.2011 trial Court which has been dealt with in its order granting bail. It has rightly observed that the fact that some of the accused are absconding cannot be a ground for refusing bail to the other accused persons or for their detention in the custody. In the circumstances, it is seen that there is no ground whatsoever made out by the applicant for cancellation of bail. There can be no cancellation of bail merely on the ground that the offences allegedly committed by respondents no.1 to 5 are serious offences. Hence, the bail application is rejected. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]