JUDGMENT 1. - This Bail application has been filed under the provisions of Section 439, Cr.PC. It is submitted by Mr. S.R. Bajwa, learned counsel, that on June 26, 1990, one Sampat Kumar was apprehended by the police at Bus Stand, Beawar and, on search, 10 biscuits of gold were recovered from his person. His statement is said to have been recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. 1962 (for brevity, Customs Act, (in which, Sampat Kumar stated that the seized gold biscuits belonged to the petitioner. The petitioner was, therefore, arrested on June 28, 1990, but nothing incriminating was found from search conducted at his premises. It further submitted that, thereafter, Customs Authorities forcibly obtained signature of petitioner on a statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act. It is contended that the petitioner is in judicial lock up. He is a person of reputed family and was indoor patient of Pratap Memorial Hospital and Research Centre, Ajmer & suffers from acute Myoccordial infraction and is undergoing treatment, even now. It is contended by the learned counsel that no statement of the petitioner or of Sampat Kumar could have been recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act before a notice was given under the provisions of section 124 of the Customs Act. It is pointed out that during the investigation stage/enquiry, statement under section 107 of the Customs Act alone could be recorded. It is also contested that no accused-person could be forced to record his statement under section 108 of the Customs Act, as the same is on oath. Reliance was placed on Balkrishna v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1974 SC 120 in which, it held by the Apex Court that while the normal process of enquiry is facilitated by section 108, investigatory emergencies are taken care of by section 107. The situation may arise where the failure to question a witness quickly may mean irretrievable loss of a valuable material and section 107 meets this need. It is, therefore, contended that the Customs Authorities could have recorded the statements only under section 107 and not under section 108 of the Customs Act. In Union of India v. Abdul Kader and other, 1985 Cr. It is, therefore, contended that the Customs Authorities could have recorded the statements only under section 107 and not under section 108 of the Customs Act. In Union of India v. Abdul Kader and other, 1985 Cr. LJ (Guj.) 324 , it was observed by the Gujarat High Court that the stage of recording of statements under section 108 arises only when an inquiry is started either for confiscation of the goods or for imposing penalty. This very clear from the wordings of section 108. So far as section 107 is concerned, it takes care of investigatory emergencies. It was further observed that before recording any statement under section 108 of the Customs Act, a notice under section 124 has to be given for taking action to confiscate the goods or impose any penalty. 2. It is submitted by Mr. Sudhir Gupta, learned counsel, that the petitioner is the main culprit and Sampat Kumar was only a carrier, as stated by him in his statement. It is submitted that summonses were issued to the petitioner in the morning to record his statement and he was arrested on the same day in the evening. It is also pointed out that the view token this Court in Jagdish Soni (supra) needs re-consideration, because if this view is taken, it will be very difficult for the Customs Authorities to apprehend the culprits, who operate their carriers and keep themselves away from the clutches of the law. It is also submitted that the Customs Authorities were fully authorised to record the statement of the petitioner under section 108 of the Customs Act, in which, he has admitted his guilt. Apart from this, Sampat Kumar co-accused has also stated that the gold biscuits belonged to the petitioner and he is employed by him. 3. I have heard both the parties. Admittedly, nothing incriminating was recovered from the possession of the petitioner, who is now in judicial custody. Keeping in view the over all circumstances and the law stated above & without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner under section 439, Cr.PC. It s, therefore, ordered that accused-petitioner Hanuman Prasad be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with four sureties in the sum of Rs. I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner under section 439, Cr.PC. It s, therefore, ordered that accused-petitioner Hanuman Prasad be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with four sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the Special Court (Economic Offences), Rajasthan Jaipur, with the following conditions : (i) that he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) 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; and (iii) that he shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. Bail Granted. *******