R. A. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THE learned Counsel for the opponent-accused has requested for an adjournment of this Misc. Cr. Application on the ground that an application for furlough is being filed in the High Court today. This request is rejected in view of the fact that on 11-7-1986 the same request was made that an application for furlough is being filed shortly and therefore time for one week be granted. That request was granted and the matter was kept on 18-7-1986. Again the request was repeated and time was granted till today on a clear understanding that no further time would be granted. Therefore the request for further time is not granted today. ( 2 ) MOREOVER for obtaining bail the accused had not waited for furlough being granted and on getting furlough the bail application might have been moved but they had chosen to move the bail application first and therefore there is no reason to wait for the result of the furlough application for disposal this bail application. ( 3 ) THIS application is for cancellation an order of bail and to quash and set aside the order dated 28-5-1986 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Ahmedabad. The opponentaccused is undergoing sentence for his conviction under Customs Act since April 1982 There are other cases also pending against the opponent under the Customs Act. One such case is being Case No. 639 of 1983. In that case the trial court had earlier passed all order to release him on bail. However that order was set aside by the High Court in Misc. Criminal Application No. 600 of 1983 by the judgment and order dated 7-9-1983 passed by V. V. Bedarkar J. ( 4 ) ON 16-5-1986 the accused made another application for bail from jail contending that he has been serving sentence of 7 years imposed on him under the Customs and Gold Control Act wherein the sentence of 7 years and fine of 10 lacs was imposed upon him. However in appeal the sentence of 7 years was confirmed and fine was reduced to Rs. 5 lacs. In that application he also pointed out that the trial court had granted him bail earlier. However that order of bail was cancelled by the High Court. However in appeal the sentence of 7 years was confirmed and fine was reduced to Rs. 5 lacs. In that application he also pointed out that the trial court had granted him bail earlier. However that order of bail was cancelled by the High Court. ( 5 ) IT was also submitted in the application that since the bail was refused he is in judicial custody he cannot be released on parole or furlough. Therefore in order to avail of furlough in respect of the sentence which he is undergoing it was necessary that he should be released on 173 bail from the judicial custody in respect of the criminal case pending before the trial court. It is also pointed out that his family members including his mother wife and children had come from Pakistan on a lawful passport and VISA and they had come for one month to meet him and they are being granted one interview in a month and therefore the relatives of the accused are finding it very difficult to have interviews and visit to the accused and that the time of interview is also very short and the authorities have refused to give more interviews. It was also pointed out that the relatives were granted VISA for 40 days only. On this application the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate passed an order granting bail on the ground of humanity in order to enable the accused and his close relatives to meet. The operative order of the learned Magistrate is to the effect that if the accused is granted furlough he should be released on bail in both the cases of Rs. 25 0 and the accused shall reside in the hotel decided by the authorities and at that place armed guards in such number and of such rank and designation as may be determined by the authorities shall remain continuously present and the accused shall bear their expenses and none other than the close relatives mentioned in the application shall be allowed to meet the accused and there will be special register to keep the note of visitors and they have to declare as to where they have been residing presently. The passport of the accused was also directed to be deposited in the Court and the bail was directed to stand cancelled on the expiry of furlough if granted. The passport of the accused was also directed to be deposited in the Court and the bail was directed to stand cancelled on the expiry of furlough if granted. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the complainant petitioner (the Customs Authority) has submitted that the conditions imposed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate clearly show that the learned Magistrate accepts the fact that the accused is a person who cannot be trusted for being released on bail because armed guards are continuously directed to be kept present and the accused is not permitted to meet anyone except his close family members. It is also submitted by the accused that they were allowed to visit only once in a month for a period of 15 minutes only even though family members have come from Pakistan on a VISA of 40 days only. ( 7 ) IN the matter of family interviews Special Criminal Application No. 593 of 1986 was already filed on 21st May 1986 and I myself had an occasion to deal with the same and I had impressed upon the jail authorities to see that the relatives of the accused are granted more frequent interviews for longer period in order to see that the human aspect and family interviews are taken care of and the matter was adjourned from time to time for a day or two in order to see that the human and family aspect of the case is taken care of and this was within the knowledge of the advocates appearing for the family members and the accused and they had requested that reasonable frequency and length of interview be granted to them. However this was not pointed out to the learned Magistrate. I had ultimately passed an order in that Special Criminal Application directing the jail authorities to grant inter view to the family members once in a week for 45 minutes each. ( 8 ) EVEN though in para 4 of the application the accused had pointed out that in this very case earlier order of the learned Magistrate to release him on bail was cancelled by the High Court the learned Magistrate had not cared to look at the order of the High Court and the reasons for which the High Court has cancelled the bail. In that case the 174 High Court has referred to the affidavit of the jail authorities in which it is stated that the petitioner-accused is a Pakistani national and once he is released on bail it will be difficult to bring him back for trial and once he manages to go out it will not be possible to have him extradited. Ultimately the learned Judge observed as under:it is patent fact that the petitioner is a Pakistani national. He has no roots in India. He has no family in India. Even it is not the case of the petitioner that he has any attachment with co-accused Rekha C. Shah either in the form of a beloved or concubine. So mere attachment with co-accused Rekha C. Shah would not establish that he has roots in India. So the petitioner has no interest whatsoever to continue to remain in India the moment he is released on bail; when he has all resources and facilities to leave India immediately after he is out from the clutches of the Police or prison and be not available to law for trial. Therefore his is a very peculiar case wherein the Court must be very vigilant. Court should also not be very hyper-technical or sensitive only because a person is involved in a Custom Case. Vigilance is required when apparently it seems that the moment that person is released he will not be available for trial. Instant case is one of such type and on this consideration as mentioned by the Division Bench also this is not a case where the accused should be released on bail. ( 9 ) IN view of the above reasons the High Court cancelled the bail granted to release the accused on bail. It is susprising as to while the applications for parole furlough and interviews are being filed before the High Court in respect of this very accused the application for bail was moved before the learned Magistrate even though the bail application would be competent in the High Court and would be certainly a more proper forum in view of the fact that the High Court had cancelled the bail earlier in this very case. ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel for the accused has submitted that the learned Magistrate has granted bail for a very limited period to be operative only in case his furlough application is granted. That too with very stringent conditions and there is no question of any interference by the High Court in such a discretionary order especially when it has been passed on humanitarian aspect. As far as the human and family aspect is concerned it has already been taken care of by allowing frequent interviews for reasonably long time. In any case that humanitarian ground would be no ground for releasing him on bail in case of the person like the present petitioner and that humanitarian aspect is required to be taken care of otherwise than by releasing this accused on bail parole or furlough. ( 11 ) AS far as the present accused is concerned it is very clear that he is a person who cannot be trusted for being released on bail parole or furlough having regard to the fact that he has no roots in India he is very rich and having resources and sufficient means to make good his escape. Persons with means and resources have made their escape even from the custody of police and imposing such terms and conditions would not serve any purpose in this case and there fore the order of bail cannot be sustained and the learned Magistrate has clearly exceeded his jurisdiction and judicial discretion in granting the order of bail even on conditions. ( 12 ) THE learned Counsel for the opponent accused has submitted that this applications for cancellation of bail is not competent because the words in Section 439 (2) Criminal Procedure Code 175 are that A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody. This power is really a power of cancellation of bail and a person who has been released on bail can be arrested under the directions of the High Court It necessarily included the power to see that the accused is not released on bail and that power is necessary and incidental to the power conferred by subsection (2) of Section 439. Even otherwise there is inherent power in the High Court under the revisional as well as constitutional power to examine and modify or reverse the orders of subordinate courts. Therefore the contention that the application is not maintainable and the High Court has no jurisdiction is without any merits whatsoever. ( 13 ) THE learned Counsel for the opponent accused has also submitted that under Section 437 (6) if the trial is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case such person shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate unless for reasons to be recorded in writing the Magistrate otherwise directs. In the present case after framing of the charge the proceedings have been stayed by the orders of the Sessions Court and otherwise also there are reasons which are already on record as to why this accused cannot be released on bail. They are found in the judgment of the High Court referred to earlier and also in this judgment. ( 14 ) IN view of these special facts of this case and in view of the fact that the High Court had earlier cancelled his hail for strong reasons the learned Magistrate could not have disregarded the order of the High Court and sat in appeal over the judgment of the High Court. ( 15 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion the order passed by the learned Magistrate cannot be sustained and is required to be set aside. ( 16 ) IN the result the Misc. Criminal Application is allowed and the rule is made absolute by quashing and setting aside the order dated 28-5-1986. Application allowed. .