1 BA-409.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.409 OF 2011 IN R.A. NO.7 OF 2011 Vinod Kansal .... Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents S/Shri A.H.H. Ponda i/b Ashok Singh & R.N. Gaonkar for the Applicant. Ms Alpa T. Javeri, APP, for the State. Ms Nitee Punde, Special Public Prosecutor for the Customs-CIU. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: APRIL 06, 2011 P.C: 1. This is an application for bail by an importer of Maize under TRQ Scheme. The applicant was supposed to have imported Maize for being used for manufacturing popcorn but was found to have sold some bags of Maize to theater owners. Therefore, the applicant was arrested on 14-2-2011 and is in custody since then. The investigators seem to have taken him out of the custody on three occasions, that is on 23-2-2011, 7-3-2011 and 15-3-2011, for the purpose of interrogation. The learned Special 2 BA-409.11 PP for the Customs-CIU first submits that the Maize was supposed to be converted into popcorn and only in the form of popcorn it could have been sold by the applicant. Those who were conversant with how popcorn is made and sold at theaters and other public places, or even in houses, would question the wisdom of the Department in insisting that Maize should be first converted into popcorn and then repacked and sold, particularly since the quantity of Maize which is imported is more than 1000 tonnes. Presuming that the applicant has committed an offence punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 which attracts maximum punishment of seven years, justification for keeping the applicant in custody is not at all seen. The learned Special PP submitted that the applicant has not been co-operating with the Department and in the spells of interrogation has not given relevant information. Expectation that the accused should furnish information is, to say the least, thoroughly unjustified. The investigating agency with all the powers it has can always find out where to seek the evidence to connect the suspect to the crime. In any case, if the Customs Department was really serious, the applicant could have been grilled 3 BA-409.11 day-after-day during his detention in custody. They have chosen only three spells of interrogation spread over almost two months now. The learned Special PP next submitted that the Cr.P.C. permits detention in custody upto 60 days. This does not mean that a citizen has to languish in jail for 60 days to enable the investigating agency to interrogate him. Every day's detention has to be justified by the investigators. Right now I see no justification for any further detention of the applicant. The application is, therefore, allowed. The applicant be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in the sum aggregating to Rs.1,00,000/- on the condition that the applicant shall report at the office of the investigating agency on 11-4-2011 at 11:00 a.m. for interrogation, or on the first day after the applicant is actually bailed out, and thereafter as and when required by the investigating agency. The application accordingly stands disposed of. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)