JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Counsel Shri N.C. Chaudhary and Shri B.K. Pathak for non-petitioner Jamaluddin Rav. 2. This is an application under Section 439(2) Cr.PC for cancellation of bail granted by learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City in Cr.Misc. Bail Application No. 31 of 1988 arising out of Criminal Case No. 2 of 1988 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, (Economic Offence) Rajasthan, Jaipur for the offence under Section 56 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. 3. The contention of Shri Chaudhary is that the non-petitioner is regularly conducting anti national activities by distributing Indian currency to people living in India in lieu of foreign currency paid in foreign countries. He acts as an agent and causes financial losses of foreign exchange to the country. Another ground on which bail is sought to be cancelled is that he did not produce passport when apprehended and thereafter also. 4. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel that the non-petitioner has been again arrested under the provisions of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short COFEPOSA Act) and is presently in custody from 8-3-1988. It is, therefore, submitted that he is a habitual offender and carries on anti national activities regularly and therefore, does not deserve to have concession of being on bail. 5. Shri B.K. Pathak, learned Counsel for the non-petitioner submits that in obedience to order by this Court dated 26-2-1988, the passport has been surrendered in the court and therefore, this ground does not exist any more. He points out that an application was filed along with passport praying that instead of surrendering the passport to the Directorate of Enforcement it may be kept in court. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel that since he is already in custody therefore, it is hardly necessary to cancel the bail granted to the non-petitioner. 6. The learned Counsel has also placed reliance on the case of Arjun Singh v. Amar Singh and Ors. , S.B. Criminal Application No. 256 of 1984 decided by this Court on 25-8-1984 (1985 Rajasthan Dandik Nirnaya Patrika 22) in which it has been observed by this Court that the application for cancellation of bail should in the first instance be filed in the same court by which the bail was granted. 7. , S.B. Criminal Application No. 256 of 1984 decided by this Court on 25-8-1984 (1985 Rajasthan Dandik Nirnaya Patrika 22) in which it has been observed by this Court that the application for cancellation of bail should in the first instance be filed in the same court by which the bail was granted. 7. Since the non-petitioner is already in custody therefore, I do not consider it necessery to decide this application on merits. The passport has been surrendered by the non-petitioner and the same will be kept in this Court in double-locker and shall be released to the petitioner only after such permission is granted by this Court. Shri Chaudhary learned Counsel for the Union of India prays that he may be permitted to file a fresh application for cancellation of bail at any other time, if the circumstances so require. Needless to say the petitioner can always file any application for cancellation of bail at any time provided there are circumstances for doing so.The application is rejected.Application rejected. *******