Judgment : 1. Petitionunder Sec.482, Crl.P.C, praying to cancel the bail granted to the respondents in Crl.M.P.No.17129 of 1990. 2. The Assistant Collector of Customs has filed an affidavit in support of the application. The allegations in it are briefly as follows: The respondents were arrested on 18.8.1990). After investigation, a complaint was filed against them in CC.No.739 of 1990 before Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee. The respondents have committed offence punishable under Sec.8(3) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 which is punishable under Secs.23, 28 and 29 of the said Act besides offence under Sec.135(1)(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. Due to unforeseen circumstances, the complaint could not be filed within 90 days of the date of arrest. While so, respondents filed Crl.M.P.No.17129 of 1990 on the file of this court and had prayed for bail on the ground that 90 days had elapsed and no complaint is filed and that they are entitled to bail under the proviso to Sec. 167(2), Crl.P.C This court had allowed this petition and granted bail on certain conditions. They have got no right to continue to be in bail after the complaint has been filed which brings serious offences of possession of 10.195 Kilograms of heroin the part of the first accused and for exporting the same illicitly and accused No.2 for conspiracy with accused No.1 and attempt to export the same illegally and thus have committed offence alleged which attract a minimum sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000. In the light of the materials gathered during the course of investigation, the respondent cannot claim bail and they cannot have a claim to remain on bail obtained under the provisions of proviso of Sec. 167(2), Crl.P.C. They are foreigners, involved in serious offences. They would make good their escape once they come out of bail and would effectively render the course of investigation futile. Hence the petition. 3. The accused have filed counter. The allegations in it are briefly as follows: The accused were arrested on 18.8.1990 on the allegation that first accused was in possession of contraband drugs and the second accused had assisted the first accused. The complainant did not file the complaint within 90 days and hence these accused filed petition for bail and it was granted on 20.11.1990. In the meanwhile, the accused were detained under the preventive detention. The complainant did not file the complaint within 90 days and hence these accused filed petition for bail and it was granted on 20.11.1990. In the meanwhile, the accused were detained under the preventive detention. The accused filed W.P.Nos.17148and 18011 of 1990 in this court and they were allowed on 26.4.1991. The accused had not committed any offence. They have got fixed place of residence at Madras. The first accused has married Indian lady and has got two children. They are studying in schools. He is an engineering graduate. He is in India for more than 15 years. His passport has been impounded from the date of arrest. The second accused is a student. There is nothing incriminating against him. If the accused are not released on bail, they will be greatly prejudiced..Their health condition is deteriorating day-by-day. Hence dismissal of the petition is prayed for. 4. Mr.P.Rajamanickam, the learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that the accused were released on bail under the proviso to Sec.167(2), Crl.P.C, on the ground that complaint was not filed within 90 days of the date of arrest and that would not entitle the accused to remain on bail and, if the materials disclosed that they have committed grave and serious offences, bail can be cancelled, and in the instant case, there are materials showing that they have committed grave offences and they do not satisfy the requirements of Sec.37 of N.D.P.S. Act and hence bail may be cancelled. Per contra, Mr.R.Raghupathy, the learned counsel appearing for the accused, would contend that though the accused are Nigerians, they have roots in India, the first accused has married an Indian lady and has got two children and second accused is an engineering graduate and that there are no materials against the second accused. 5. Both the accused were arrested on 18.8.1990. They were released on bail under proviso to Sec.167(2), Crl.P.C, because complaint was not filed against them within 90 days of date of arrest. Thereafter,- complaint has been filed against both the accused. Now petition for cancellation of bail is filed. The learned Public Prosecutor relied upon the ruling reported in Rajnikant v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, New Delhi Rajnikant v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, New Delhi A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 71in para 13, the Apex Court has held as follows: “The accused cannot, therefore, claim any special right to remain on bail. The learned Public Prosecutor relied upon the ruling reported in Rajnikant v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, New Delhi Rajnikant v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, New Delhi A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 71in para 13, the Apex Court has held as follows: “The accused cannot, therefore, claim any special right to remain on bail. If the investigation reveals that the accused has committed a serious offence an I charge-sheet is filed, the bail granted under proviso (a) to Sec.167(2), could be cancelled.” So, since the accused were released under proviso to Sec.167(2), Crl.P.C., they cannot claim that they have got any right to remain on bail if the circumstances warrant cancellation of the bail. We have to next see whether investigation revealed that accused had committed serious offences and complaint has been laid. Admittedly complaint has been laid. It is seen from the complaint that on 18.8.90, the first accused was intercepted at the time when he was about to board an Air Lanka Flight for Colombo by Customs Officers and on examination, it was found that he had concealed heroin weighing 10.195 Kilograms within the books in a clever way. He initially denied having any narcotic drugs kept in his luggage. But on search, the above recovery was made from his baggage. He had not declared it. Both the accused have given statements. Similar books within which heroin can be concealed were found at the residence of the second accused. Both the accused are foreigners. Though the first accused would claim that he had married an Indian lady and has got two children and the second accused claims to be a student in India, the stark fact remains that both of them are Nigerians. Their possibility of jumping bail and going abroad and thus defeating the course of justice cannot be ruled out. In view of the above factors, lam clear that circumstances available are abundant for cancellation of the bail. 6. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the bail granted in Crl.M.P.No. 17129 of 1990 is hereby cancelled. However, the learned trial Magistrate is hereby directed to expedite trial of the case and dispose it of within a period of three months from the d ate of receipt of this order. 6. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the bail granted in Crl.M.P.No. 17129 of 1990 is hereby cancelled. However, the learned trial Magistrate is hereby directed to expedite trial of the case and dispose it of within a period of three months from the d ate of receipt of this order. The petitioner shall see that prosecution witnesses are produced promptly without any delay what so ever, on the dates fixed by the learned Magistrate for trial.