JUDGMENT Kotwal J,-Heard Shri M.K. Patwardhan, the learned Senior Counsel for the Customs Department and S/Shri Krishkant Desai, P.R.Vakil and S.G. Samant, the learned counsel, for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. Perused the relevant papers of investigation which are tendered by the Investigating Officer who is present in Court and which are also sought to be relied upon by Shri Patwardhan on behalf of the Department. 3. On the basis of intelligence report the officers of the Enforcement Directorate conducted raids at the office premises of M/s Digitron Computers Private Limited, Bombay and M/s Datamatics Consultance Limited as also the residential premises of respondent No. 2 who is claimed to be the Director of the said concern. All the three accused are alleged to have been associated with the said two concerns. This was in connection with the contravention under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. Some documents came to be seized from the two places and now those are sought to be constructed to spell out an inference formulating an offence under the said Act alleged to have been committed by the three accused. The three respondents came to be arrested on 29th of November 1985 and they were produced before the learned Magistrate for remand when a counter claim for bail was made by the respondents-accused and which claim found favour with the learned Magistrate who enlarged the three respondents on bail each in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The petitioner herein is the Assistant Director of Enforcement Directorate protests against the validity of that order in this proceeding. 4. The allegations as leveled against the respondents are elaborately reflected in the remand application filed on 29th November 1985 before the trial Court and the same need not be re-stated. In substance however it is alleged that an account was opened with City Bank at Singapore in the name of one of the concerns in 1982 which was sought to be operated by two out of these three respondents on behalf of the company though it is alleged that the mailing address of the account was given in the name of a person residing at Jakarta and the suggestive inference is that this was a camouflage so that the party in India could not be contacted. It transpired that quite a sizable amount running into several lakhs came to be transferred to the said account while certain amounts in U.S. Dollars were deposited in fixed deposit All this was done as per the allegations without there being valid permission from the Reserve Bank. 5. In view of these and allied allegations Shri Patwardhan, the learned Senior counsel, contends that it is apparent that there is a vast extent of the activities with a corresponding equally vast extent of the investigation required to be done. Several documents are yet to be construed and on that basis several persons will have to be contacted and several links are yet to be tapped. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that at least a reasonable opportunity should have been given for the purpose of investigation. It was also suggested that at this stage some features are still in nebulous form and the Department may justifiably apprehend that there might be deeper links with more sinister implications which, will have to be explored. It was suggested that the accused may hamper the investigation as also tamper with the evidence if they are released on bail. 6. All these contentions are countered by the learned counsel for the respondents and in support thereof they have tried to un-fold certain salient features. 7. The learned Magistrate has recorded a speaking order and he is of the opinion that most of the documents reflect the transactions which were effected through bank and as such there was no scope for tampering with the evidence. Shri Patwardhan, the learned counsel submits that all the documents were not produced before the learned Magistrate who opined erroneously that there are only few documents. Even accepting that situation, still the observation of the learned Magistrate to some extent at least would remain intact. It was also suggested that several persons are yet to be contacted. The learned Magistrate has considered the impact of all these contentions and came to the conclusion that in the first instance there is no scope for tampering with the evidence and secondly the investigation need not be said as likely to be hampered if the accused are enlarged on bail. He has obviously imposed relevant conditions annexed to the said bail. 8. He has obviously imposed relevant conditions annexed to the said bail. 8. It is true that an offence of a serious nature would justify the prosecution contention to have a reasonable opportunity and time to investigate. As to what would be the concept of reasonable time would obviously depend on the facts and circumstances of each ca e and no rule of universal application can be enunciated. In a given set of circumstances, not placing the accused in custody at all may not come in the way of effective investigation; while in other, a short period of custody may be justified, whereas in yet another set of circumstances, the merit may justify a longer period of custody which may be necessary for effective investigation. All these features depend exclusively on the facts and circumstances of each case which cannot be placed in a straight jacket It cannot be over-looked that the petitioners are already enlarged on bail on the 29th of November 1985 and they continued to enjoy the liberty till this day. The apprehension expressed by Shri Patwardhan that if they are out the respondents would try to contact their links or manipulate the evidence would lose its core and foundation, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, when it is apparent that the respondents have already been on bail right from 29th November 1985. This submission would have assumed more relevance at the first instance when the accused were required to be released on bail. However, by reason of this passage of time, may be of short duration, the situation to some extent at least gets changed and the impact of this change in the situation cannot be ignored, though it may not be confused to mean that a manifestly wrong order giving rise to such a situation need be confirmed only on that count. In this case, however, such consideration would not arise as the order cannot be said to be so. Furthermore, the allegation that several links are yet to be tapped is yet in a nebulous form without any tangible shade and such allegations by themselves cannot be the ground to snatch the liberty of the citizen. As to who are those persons or as to what are the documents which are yet to be considered have not been transpired. Furthermore, the allegation that several links are yet to be tapped is yet in a nebulous form without any tangible shade and such allegations by themselves cannot be the ground to snatch the liberty of the citizen. As to who are those persons or as to what are the documents which are yet to be considered have not been transpired. The suggestion that the Department apprehends that there might be something deeper and more sinister when the apprehension was whispered though in a guarded manner that there might be several possibilities and one of such that may be that the respondents are associated with some bad elements including some foreign agency. This again is in a nebulous form and it is more in the vacuum rather than in reality at least in the absence of any material and the learned counsel for the respondents therefore are justified in submitting that an inference of this character which assumes to condemn the respondents cannot be lightly drawn. At present even the Department are not firm and sure about the situation. Consequently such vague allegations on a spacious ground cannot be countenanced in the absence of any adequate data. 9. As regards the likelihood of tampering with the evidence the learned Magistrate properly applied his mind and it does appear as rightly observed that most of the transactions were effected through the Bank and as such the scope for tampering with the evidence has been considerably reduced. It is practically accepted on behalf of the Department or at any rate not disputed and rightly so as it is in consonance with the circumstances, that there is no scope for apprehension that the respondents are likely to abscond. This is obviously so because the respondents have deep roots in India and especially in this metropolis and they cannot afford to leave the limits. That is also not suggested by the Department. 10. A statement is made at the Bar that the first respondent is highly educated person having obtained a degree of foreign university in Technology and his services are even requisitioned as Tata Consultance and he is claimed to be an expert in the computers' field. The other two respondents also come from respectable families and are also on par with him in all respects. They have permanent residence at Bombay where they are residing with their families. The residence of accused Nos. The other two respondents also come from respectable families and are also on par with him in all respects. They have permanent residence at Bombay where they are residing with their families. The residence of accused Nos. 1 and 3 has not been searched by the officers even though they had full opportunity upto this day. 11. Having regard to all these features in my opinion, there is no scope or a valid reason as to why the liberty granted to the respondents be snatched. This conclusion assumes more significance when it can be seen with justification that their remaining outside would not cause prejudice to the prosecution as sought to be suggested because the investigation can still be carried on equally effectively even if the respondents are out. There is also no scope for the apprehension that they are likely to hamper the investigation or tamper with the evidence. The respondents remaining on bail and the investigation being carried on effectively can run on parallel tracks without affecting each other. Merely because large amount is involved that by itself is no ground to overshadow the other relevant features. Incidentally, it cannot be lightly overlooked that this is a case where the trial Court has exercised its discretion in favour of granting bail and even though a distinction can be made in a case where bail earlier properly granted is to be cancelled and the one where an erroneous order of bail is merely to be set aside. However, in the case at hand, it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate has exercised his discretion erroneously against the settled principles and as such that discretion need not be lightly disturbed. 12. Consequently there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 13. It cannot be under-estimated that the respondents have furnished sureties in the substantial amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- each and the learned Magistrate was cautious enough to impose conditions which would serve the interest of justice as also protect the interest of the Department in that they have been directed to surrender the pass-ports to the Customs, they are restrained from leaving the limits of this metropolis without the permission of the Court and in addition thereto they have been directed to attend the Directorate of Enforcement every day between 12 noon and 3.00 P.M. till 12th of December 1985. All these conditions in my opinion further ensure a fair play striking the balance between the two sides. 14. In order to dispel even a remote scope for confusion it is clarified that the order and the observations herein above are strictly restricted to the facts and circumstances of each case and should not be confused as having an universal application. 15. There is no expression of opinion on merits whatsoever and all the rival contentions are left open. 16. Petition rejected. 17. The motion of the petitioner for setting aside the trial Court's order and for cancellation of bail granted in favour of the respondents is rejected. Petition rejected