* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURIDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 262 OF 2010 Vikrant Agrawal .......Petitioner V/s. Union of India & Ors. ........Respondents --------- Shri. Uday Warunjikar, adv.for petitioner. Shri. N.N. Salvi, adv.for respondents no.1 and 2. Ms. R.V. Newton, APP for State-respondent no.3. CORAM :- S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED :- 8th FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C. :- 1. The order under challenge is passed by the Ad-Hoc Additional Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad dated 22/10/2009 allowing an application for bail preferred by the present applicant being Criminal Misc. Application No. 794 of 2009. The applicant is enlarged on bail. Naturally, therefore, he cannot be aggrieved by this order and does not challenge it. However, while enlarging him on bail, the Additional Sessions Judge imposed a condition on him, not to leave the country without the permission of the court. The condition imposed in the Sessions Court order was sought to be relaxed and the applicant * 2 * preferred an application seeking such relaxation. That relaxation was done by filing Misc. Application No. 898 of 2009. It is the contention of the applicant that he is a businessman carrying on business in the name and style of M/s. Venture Impex in import and export. He holds a valid import and export order. For his business, he is required to travel outside India, so also, when the applicant is a permanent resident of Mumbai, the condition be relaxed or deleted. More so, when the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 is bailable. 2. The learned Judge rejected that application, on the ground that the application for relaxation of the condition, does not set out complete facts. The applicant has not given details of the business and the main purpose for going abroad in connection with the business. The application is also not signed by the applicant himself. The rejection is particularly on the ground that no documents are placed on record. 3. It is this order dated 22/12/2009 together with the condition imposed in the earlier order, which is subject matter of challenge in this application. 4. When this application was argued, Mr. Salvi appearing on behalf of the prosecution, contended that the offence punishable in this case, is non-bailable, because it exceeds the amount mentioned in Section 135(1)(i)(B) of The Customs Act, 1962. He submits that the evasion of duty or attempted evasion in this case, exceeds Rs. 30,00,000/- and is to tune of Rs.60,00,000/-, which submission is * 3 * countered by Shri. Warunjikar by contending that the prosecution has not challenged the impugned order nor has it anywhere contended by producing records, that the offence is non-bailable. 5. Having perused the order dated 22/12/2009, it is apparent that the application of the applicant is essentially rejected for want of production of documents and requisite material. In such circumstances, interest of justice would be served, if the order under challenge is set aside and the application seeking relaxation being Criminal Misc. Application No. 898 of 2009 is restored to file of the Sessions Court, Raigad for being decided afresh in accordance with law. The applicant shall be at liberty to produce additional material and documents on affidavit. The prosecution will be entitled to show that the offence alleged is non-bailable. All pleas and contentions are kept open. The Sessions Court, Raigad to endeavour and dispose off this application within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. This Criminal Application is allowed in these terms. [S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J]