K. J. VAIDYA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner-Sandip Pritpal Sing Khanuja who came to be arrested on 13-12-1992 (Sic.)by the Customs Officers in connection with CR No. 645/92 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ahmedabad for the alleged offence punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act 1962 for having been found in possession of 15 gold biscuits valued at Rs. 1 35 0 allegedly smuggled in India from Singapore concealed in tape-recorder has by this application moved this Court for getting himself released on bail challenging the impugned judgment and the order dated 3-3-1992 passed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge Court No. 20 Ahmedabad dismissing his bail application. ( 2 ) MR. M. B. Ahuja the Ld. Advocate appearing for the petitioner making fervent plea to release the petitioner on bail has made following submissions: (1) That the petitioner is a young man aged 26 years having no criminal antecedents. (2) That the petitioner hails from a very respectable family which is never alleged to have been involved in any criminal offence. (3) That the alleged offence is a first lapse on the part of the petitioner in his life and deserves to be lightly viewed and condoned in order to give a chance to turn new chapter in his life to prove better citizen and useful component in the society at this stage at least. (4) That the petitioner is a Commerce Graduate from Gujarat University and during his student career he has been adjudged the best NCC Cadet. He has represented NCC Directorate of Gujarat State at Annual NCC Republic Day Camp and Prime Ministers Rally held at New Delhi from 5-1-1986 to 29-1-1986. He has also participated in NCC Parade organised at Delhi in the year 1986 (Certificates annexed ). (5) That the petitioner as a member of NCC has also received a merit certificate dated 30 issued by the Director General of NCC for attending advance leadership course at Vishakhapatnam from 10-10-1986 to 30-10-1986 and has obtained second position in his group (Certificate annexed ). (6) That he is also given a certificate dated 31 by Bhonsale Military School Nasik where he has been declared passed successfully in Physical and Military Training Rifle Shooting Horse Riding Yogasam Self-defence Swimming and Games (certificate annexed ). (6) That he is also given a certificate dated 31 by Bhonsale Military School Nasik where he has been declared passed successfully in Physical and Military Training Rifle Shooting Horse Riding Yogasam Self-defence Swimming and Games (certificate annexed ). (7) That for the alleged offence against the petitioner the sentence provided is seven years and taking into consideration the fact that these days trial in the lower Court takes a considerable time and if the petitioner is not ordered to be released on bail at this stage it is very likely that he may serve out most of the period of sentence as an under trial prisoner which would be nothing but a pre-trial punishment before he has an opportunity to prove his innocence. (8) That the investigation of the case is already over as the complaint is filed. (9) That the petitioner while denying the allegations against him in the alternative has expressed his sincere repentence for the alleged offence if his defence is not accepted. On the basis of the above submissions Mr. Ahuja finally urged that this is a case wherein a special case is made out and hence the discretion of this Court be exercised in favour of the petitioner by releasing him on bail. ( 3 ) AS against the above Mr. K. L. Abichandani the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Customs Department has vehemently opposed this bail application on the following grounds: (1) That the offence alleged against the petitioner is a very serious economic offence and has been schemingly committed after due deliberations and designs. The modus operandi of the petitioner of specially visiting Singopore under the guise of a pleasure trip in company of smugglers and then returning with muddamal 15 gold biscuits concealed in a tape recorder speaks volumes about the potentiality of the alleged crime and the criminal. (2) That to show mercy and release such anti-nationals would be to expose the Nation to further economic ruins as that only because of such economic offenders economy of the country has been reduced to the total bankruptcy as we find it today. (3) That there is no guarantee whatsoever that if the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail he would not repeat and indulge again in the similar anti-national activities damaging the national interest further. (3) That there is no guarantee whatsoever that if the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail he would not repeat and indulge again in the similar anti-national activities damaging the national interest further. (4) That unless the Court also comes down heavily upon such economic offenders it is not possible to eradicate the cancerous evil of smuggling from this country. Mr. Abichandani in the light of the aforesaid submissions finally urged that the petitioner should not be released on bail. ( 4 ) NOW it is indeed not difficult for this Court to appreciate the serious concern voiced by Mr. Abichandani while opposing this bail application. There is no doubt that the economic rut and the bankruptcy in which the country is found entangled today the nefarious role played the smugglers like the present petitioner cannot be under estimated. The smuggling has done immense and untold harm to the economy of this country and that the same despite frantic efforts of the Government to control it merrily goes on unabated in its own ways. This important aspect has to be continuously borne in mind by every Court while considering the bail application. But at the same time at times sometimes the question does arises in the judicial mind after quite anxiously considering and reflecting upon the problem involved as to whether the judicial discretion and the vision can be permitted to be mechanically obsessed and obscured merely because in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case a person is found to be a smuggler ? Ordinarily Mr. Abichandani is more than right that the person involved in such a serious offence does not deserve any sympathy to be released on bail but then there are cases and cases where over and above bearing in mind the overall national interest the Court is also expected to consider each case objectively and afresh in the light of peculiar attending circumstances of the case. The exercise of a judicial discretion is a matter of balanced objective approach. If the Court while exercising the discretion adverts itself to only one-sided picture of the problem turning totally blind to equally important other relevant circumstances having necessary weightage to tilt the scale in favour of the accused in that case it cannot be said that the discretion has been exercised legally justly and fairly. If the Court while exercising the discretion adverts itself to only one-sided picture of the problem turning totally blind to equally important other relevant circumstances having necessary weightage to tilt the scale in favour of the accused in that case it cannot be said that the discretion has been exercised legally justly and fairly. Accordingly turning to the instant case taking into consideration the catalogue of bright record of the petitioner supported by various certificates which has not been disputed by Mr. Abichandani it has to be stated that though the offence alleged against the petitioner is undoubtedly a serious offence to be countenanced lightly still however this appears to be a case where the petitioner a promising young man with an illustrious record to his credit by and large have been misguided and wandered away in the slippery youthful age in the bad company of some anti-nationals to the misfortune of himself and his family. The obvious questions under such circumstances that arise for consideration of this Court is: Whether would it be just and proper to deny bail to the petitioner in total disregard of his background as highlighted by Mr. Ahuja merely because the offence alleged against the petitioner is that of smuggling? Would not refusing the bail to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case at this stage frustrate him further driving him to a point of no return in company of some dreaded die-hard hardened criminals in jail campus and in the process compelling him to turn from bad to worse from worse to worst and from worst to the worst ? And if indeed this apprehension unfortunately turns out to be true what will be the way either for his family and the society to reclaim him back in its fold who indeed would then be responsible for such a situation? Would it not be in that case create a problem of more economic offences as by now may come out as more determined offender? These are some of the crucial questions which are required to be appreciated understood and answered in a way which strikes just balance between interest of the nation on the one hand and that of the petitioner on the other. These are some of the crucial questions which are required to be appreciated understood and answered in a way which strikes just balance between interest of the nation on the one hand and that of the petitioner on the other. Now the petitioner who because of his immaturity having lured himself away to commit the alleged offence of smuggling and having tasted the arrest tasted the infamy of his family earned bad name for himself and tasted the jail atmosphere for about two months there is nothing wrong at this stage to wait and see whether the aforesaid bitter experiences have made any sobering eye-opening effect on him bringing him to the senses to understand that the life of crime or crimes does not pay in long run and then to say good bye to the criminal career by starting afresh normal life of a gentleman. If at all by chance the petitioner do not improve betraying the judicial assessment made by this Court on the facts and circumstances highlighted above and under the clever disguise get himself released on bail the arms of the law power of the Court and the will of the Customs Officers are strong and capable enough to show the petitioner his rightful place in the jail by cancelling his bail. Thus it is only in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case as highlighted above that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. ( 5 ) FINALLY coming to the serious concern and anxiety voiced by the Ld. Counsel Mr. Abichandani that in the event of the petitioner being released on bail he was likely to abuse his liberty repeating the same or similar offences in future and may tamper with the prosecution evidence it appears to this Court that the said apprehension should not be taken lightly and by way of abundant caution while releasing the petitioner on bail should impose such stringent terms and conditions which may take appropriate care of the situation by keeping the petitioner out of the harms way. ( 6 ) IN the result this bail application is allowed. The petitioner Sandip Parithpalsinh Khanjuja is ordered to be released on bail in sum of Rs. 50 0 (Rupees Fifty thousand only) and two sureties of like amount with the following further terms and conditions viz. (1) That he shall also further deposit Rs. ( 6 ) IN the result this bail application is allowed. The petitioner Sandip Parithpalsinh Khanjuja is ordered to be released on bail in sum of Rs. 50 0 (Rupees Fifty thousand only) and two sureties of like amount with the following further terms and conditions viz. (1) That he shall also further deposit Rs. 50 0 (Rupees Fifty thousand only) in cash towards his furture good conduct that is to say he shall not abuse his liberty either by way of (a) repeating the same or similar offence in future and/or (b) tamper with the prosecution evidence. (2) That the amount so deposited in this Court shall in turn be further deposited in any Scheduled Nationlised Bank in the first instance for 13 months and thereafter from time to time for further period as warranted by the particular stage of the proceedings at the relevant time after ascertaining the facts regarding the same from the lower Court in advance. (3) That the aforesaid amount deposited by the petitioner shall be returned to him with accrued interest thereupon after the trial is over irrespective of the result by way of conviction or acquittal as the case may be unless the same has been forefeited because of proved misconduct of abusing liberty by the petitioner. (4) That the present order of releasing the petitioner shall come into operation only and only after the petitioner depositing Rs. 50 0 in cash in this Court. Moment the aforesaid amount is so deposited the office in turn shall immediately communicate the information in said regard to the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Ahmedabad. (5) That the petitioner shall immediately surrender his passport if any before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Ahmedabad. It is clarified that in the event of acquittal of the petitioner or lenient setence the passport shall not be returned to him till the reasonable time for appeal against acquittal or for the enhancement of sentence is over by inquiring from the concerned department whether a proposal to file an acquittal appeal or appeal to file an acquittal appeal or appeal for enhancement sentence is made or not. (6) That the petitioner shall report once a week on every Monday between 11. 00 a. m. and 2. 00 p. m. at the Customs House Navarangpura Ahmedabad without Jail. (6) That the petitioner shall report once a week on every Monday between 11. 00 a. m. and 2. 00 p. m. at the Customs House Navarangpura Ahmedabad without Jail. (7) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly try to influence the prosecution witnesses. The petitioner also shall not associate himself with Ghanshyambhai Popatlal and Mohanbhai Hariram - the co-accused or any such persons of questionable credentials and antecedents. (8) In the event of the petitioner repeating the same or similar offence not only the cash amount of Rs. 50 0 shallstand forefeited but his bail order shall also in turn be immediately liable to becancelled. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service permitted. (NVA) .