JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has approached this court for the third time with a prayer that he should be granted bail in a case under section 3,17 of the Essential Commodities Act. A case was registered against accused-applicant on June 1, 1984 for offence under section 3/9 of the Essential Commodities Act. An application for anticipatory bail was moved before Sessions Judge, Alwar who rejected the same. On August 2, 1985 this court rejected an application for anticipatory bail of the accused in F. I. R. No. 25/85 of police station, Thana Gazi. Thereafter the accused surrendered before the trial court under Section 437 Cr. P. C. and waned him to be bailed out. The trial court did not take the accused in custody and instead asked the A. P. P. to produce the case diary, but it appears that the diary was not placed before the court by the police as is apparent from the various order-sheets. The learned Sessions Judge did not decide the application and kept it pending. It is pertinent to mention that this application was pending since August 7, 1985 and it was neither decided upto August 14, 1985 nor the accused was taken in custody despite the fact that he had surrendered. The accused therefore, approached this court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. with a prayer that this court may pass appropriate orders in the circumstances of the case 1, vide order dated August 20, 1985. held that the application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. was misconceived. I observed as under : "I am constrained to remark that bail application should not be kept pending for a long time and long rope should be given to the investigating officers who try to over-reach the courts by not forwarding the case diary when demanded. The learned Judge should decide the application forthwith in the light of the application submitted by the petitioner, also keeping in view the allegation levelled against the police officers". Since after this order was passed the petitioner again went to the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar and pressed his application under Section 437 Cr. P. C. The learned Sessions Judge again neither took the accused in custody nor public prosecutor made such a prayer. Since after this order was passed the petitioner again went to the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar and pressed his application under Section 437 Cr. P. C. The learned Sessions Judge again neither took the accused in custody nor public prosecutor made such a prayer. The learned Sessions Judge in his order stated that the police had not arrested the accused so far but still he has moved an application for bail which he purports to have been made under Section 437 Cr. P. C. The learned Judge considered it not to be maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 12AA and 12 (1) (f) of the Essential Commodities Act. It was then prayed by the counsel for the petitioner that the accused should be considered to be 'in custody', once he has surrendered to the Court in a case which is pending investigation before the police but the court refused to do so and the accused for the third time has approached this court. 2. Before I discuss the position of law it will be purposeful for me to mention some of the allegations levelled against the police as well as the Enforcement Officer in the petition. The petitioner's case is that he had a licence for running Fair Price Shop and in February and March he was given the levy sugar for distribution where there were many irregularties alleged against. On August 24, 1984 one Tejpal Sharma Enforcement Officer to whom the complaint was made, found certain irregularities and prima facie violation of the conditions of licence and therefore filed an F.I.R. on June 1, 1985 for an occurrence alleged to have been committed in the months between January-April of the year 1984. One Radha Kishan Seni resident of Bhagdoli was quoted as one of the witnesses by Babulal Gupta against the petitioner. The petitioner's case is that against Radhakishan he has personal ill-will and it is because of him that Tejpal Sharma had made a false case against him and this case has been brought in order to get his licence cancelled which was infact cancelled and later on was given to Radha Kishan. It is pertinent to mention here that on August 13, 1984, Babulal had also filed a report in police station Thana Gazi against Radha Kishan for which a case under section 392 IPC was registered against him. It is pertinent to mention here that on August 13, 1984, Babulal had also filed a report in police station Thana Gazi against Radha Kishan for which a case under section 392 IPC was registered against him. Thus Radha Kishan is instrumental in winning over the Enforcement Officer as well as disappear hold the string of the local police in order to harass and humiliate the petitioner and this is for this reason that this F. I. R. No. 25/85 has been given at police station. Thana Gazi on which nothing is being done except harassing the accused time and again, both by the Enforcement Officer as well as the Police. 3. Coming to the question of law offences under the Essential Commodities Act are being tried by the Special Court and Section 12AA reads as under : "S. 12AA-Offences triable by Special Courts- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code- (a) all offences under the Act shall be triable only by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence has been committed or where there are more Special Courts than one for such area, by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the High Court". When a person accused of an offence under the Essential Commodities Act is brought before the Special Court it may exercise the same powers for forwarding the accused to custody as are being exercised by the Magistrate tender section 167 Cr. P. C. In this eventuality when an accused surrenders before the Special Judge he has all the powers which the Magistrate has and can remand the accused to custody. Even otherwise when a person accused of an offence surrenders before the Court, he is 'in custody' of the court. The word 'custody' has been considered by their Lordship of the Supreme Court in Niranjan Singh and Anr. v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Ors., AIR 1980 SC 785 where it has categorically been held that an accused can be in custody not merely when the police arrests him, produces him before a Magistrate and gets a remand to judicial or other custody. He can be stated to be in judicial custody when he surrenders before the court and submits to its directions. Thus once an application was filed under section 437 Cr. He can be stated to be in judicial custody when he surrenders before the court and submits to its directions. Thus once an application was filed under section 437 Cr. P. C. before the learned Judge at Alwar, he was in 'custody' two options were open to Sessions Judge either his bail ought to have been granted or he should have been remanded to judicial custody. That having not been done the order is patently erroneous. I however, would have remanded the case to the learned Judge for decision afresh, but considering the fact that accused has faced lot of harassment in all the legal battles which have taken place at the trial court and this court earlier, it is no purpose sending him back to that court. 4. It is very strange and surprising that in a bail application which has been moved on August 6, 1985, and the diary was ordered to be summoned on August 7, 1985, the same has not been placed before the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar till August 28, 1985. This inordinate delay on the part of the public prosecutor or on the part of the investigating officer, as the case may be can only be taken and be termed as their showing utter disrespect to the orders of the court. When a person accused of economic offence, it is expected of the investigating authorities to be quick in investigation as well as in producing the papers before the courts. In case they are unable to assist the court in coming to right conclusions, the courts are left with no option but to be moan and grant bails. The entire responsibility for grant of such bail even in serious matters like economic offences rests on the shoulders of the investigating authorities. This court in the absence of any material being placed before it and taking into consideration that the accused has voluntarily surrendered himself before the court twice like a law abiding citizen and no anxiety having been shown to arrest him by the police, I hate no option but to give direction that the accused-petitioner shall not be arrested in F. I. R. No. 25/85 of police station. Thana Gazi provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. Thana Gazi provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer/Station House Officer, police station, Thana Gazi with the following conditions : 1. that he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required: 2. that he shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; 3. that he shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. Application allowed. *******