B. J. SHETHNA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned Advocate Shri A. D. Shah for the petitioners-accused Shri D. K. Trivedi learned P. P. for respondent No. 1-State and Shri K. L. Abichandani learned Advocate for respondent No. 2 By consent of the parties the matter is heard today. ( 2 ) THE petitioners are the accused of customs case in Criminal Case No. 1427 of 1990. They are arrested on 10-6-90 for smuggling gold worth about rupees two crores. The accused had earlier filed two separate applications being Misc. Criminal Applications No. 2459 of 1992 and 2460 of 1992 before this court for releasing them on bail on the ground that trial against them is pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (Magistrate for short) even through (sic.) more than a period of two years was passed. On 3-9-92 this Court (Coram: M. S. Parikh J.) after having heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners rejected the said applications by directing the learned Magistrate to deal with the case in question and complete the stage of framing of the charge within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the writ of the order. Opportunity was also given to the petitioners to move appropriate application for bail either before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate or before this court if the charge is not framed within that period. According to Shri Shah learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners they took direct service of two orders and served the same before the learned Magistrate on 8-9-92. ( 3 ) PERIOD of two months as directed by this Court from 8-9-92 was over on 8-11-92. Till then the Criminal Case before the learned Magistrate did not at all proceed. Therefore both the petitioners filed this common Application before this Court for releasing them on bail. ( 4 ) LEARNED Advocate Shri Shah for the petitioners relied upon the reported judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ratilal Bhanji v. Asst. Customs Collector Bombay reported in AIR 1967 Supreme Court 1639 and relied upon two unreported decisions of the Supreme Court in Criminal Misc. Applications Nos. ( 4 ) LEARNED Advocate Shri Shah for the petitioners relied upon the reported judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ratilal Bhanji v. Asst. Customs Collector Bombay reported in AIR 1967 Supreme Court 1639 and relied upon two unreported decisions of the Supreme Court in Criminal Misc. Applications Nos. 436 and 437 of 1991 decided on 3 and submitted that as the prosecution has failed to examine any witness before 8-9-92 and complete the stage of framing of charge as per the time bound programme directed by this Court in its earlier order dated 3-9-92 this Court should release the petitioners-accused on bail. As the advance copy of the petition was served upon the respondents affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 by the learned Advocate Mr. K. L. Abichandani. ( 5 ) MR. Abichandani learned Advocate appearing for the Customs Department has submitted that the prosecution was very much keen to proceed with case before the learned Magistrate and complete the stage of framing of charge within a period of two months as directed by this Court in its earlier order dated 3-9-92. But in spite of its best efforts the trial could not be commenced till 5 and on that day cross-examination of Superintendent of Customs started. As the learned Magistrate who was trying the case was under the order of transfer the prosecution was unable to examine any witness before 5-11-92. He pointed out that on previous occasions i. e. on 8-9-92 21 1 and 3-10-92 the case was adjourned because of that reason. However on 12 an Application was submitted on behalf of the petitioners and accordingly the case was adjourned to 21-10-92. Meanwhile on 19-10-92 new learned Magistrate took over the charge. Thereafter again on 21-10-92 the case was adjourned as the accused asked for time. ( 6 ) HOWEVER on 2-11-92 the Customs Department could not keep Superintendent of Customs present for his further cross examination because he was transferred to Rajkot. But immediately on 5-11-92 he was kept present and he was cross-examined in 5 and 6/11/1992. Thereafter on 13-11-92 another witness was examined. His examination continued on 16/11/1992 as 14th and 15th were holidays on account of Saturday and Sunday. On 21-11-92 third witness was examined. His cross-examination continued upto 24-11-92. But immediately on 5-11-92 he was kept present and he was cross-examined in 5 and 6/11/1992. Thereafter on 13-11-92 another witness was examined. His examination continued on 16/11/1992 as 14th and 15th were holidays on account of Saturday and Sunday. On 21-11-92 third witness was examined. His cross-examination continued upto 24-11-92. On 27 Panch witness has been examined and on that day application was submitted by the accused to produce letter of summons. Therefore the matter was kept on 30-11-92. However he could not remain present on that day because he was sick and he was living with only one kidney. Thereafter the case was kept on 1-12-92. On that day an Application was submitted by the prosecution to examine three more witnesses. For that summons are already ordered to be issued and the matter is kept now on 11-12-92 before the learned Magistrate. ( 7 ) IN view of the above Mr. Abichandani learned Advocate appearing for the Customs has submitted that the petitioners have moved this Application only on 24-11-92 by suppressing the above-said material before this Court and therefore this Application should be dismissed as the delay occurred not due to the fault of the prosecution and the prosecution has proved its bona fide by conducting the trial as directed by this Court. ( 8 ) AS against that Mr. Shah learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners have strongly relied upon two aforesaid unreported judgements of the Supreme Court and pointed out that the Supreme Court has ordered to release those accused on bail when the trial court in spite of time bound programme failed to complete the case. In this case also whatever may be the reasons but the fact is that the prosecution was unable to complete the stage of framing of charge. Therefore the accused should be released on bail. At this stage Mr. Abichandani learned Advocate has pointed out that in the aforesaid case before the Supreme Court two accused after being released on bail by the Supreme Court have jumped the bail and they are absconding. For that Proclamation is also going to be issued in by the Customs Department. He submitted that the present accused who are involved in smuggling gold worth about rupees two crores are making an attempt to be released on bail so that as soon as they are released on bail they can jump the bail. For that Proclamation is also going to be issued in by the Customs Department. He submitted that the present accused who are involved in smuggling gold worth about rupees two crores are making an attempt to be released on bail so that as soon as they are released on bail they can jump the bail. Therefore Mr. Abichandani learned Advocate submitted that though more than two years has passed and the accused are kept in custody that itself would not be a ground for releasing such accused persons on bail. ( 9 ) AS stated by Mr. Abichandani because the learned Magistrate was under order of transfer he was reluctant to proceed with case. This fact is not in dispute. The facts stated above also show that the prosecution was keen to proceed with the case as early as possible. In fact because of lengthy cross-examination of the witnesses unnecessary time is consumed in the trial. It is true that this court directed to complete the stage of framing of charge within a period of two months. The same stage could not reach and few more witnesses are also going to be examined. As submitted by Mr. Abichandani learned Advocate it will take at least January or February 1993 to complete the stage of framing of charge in view of the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Merely because the stage of framing of charge could not be over within a period of two months as directed by this Court on 3-9-92 in my view that itself should not be a ground for releasing the petitioners on bail particularly when the accused who are involved in economic offence like smuggling of gold worth about rupees two crores. Mr. Abichandani learned Advocate for the Customs Department has rightly submited that if the prosecution is able to prove its case against the petitioners-accused then looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the court may impose maximum punishment and not minimum punishment. Therefore if this Court will release them at this stage then they will immediately jump the bail as it has happened in the case before the Supreme Court. ( 10 ) IN fact the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ratilal Bhanji (supra) relied upon by the learned Advocate Shri Shah also does not support the petitioners. Therefore if this Court will release them at this stage then they will immediately jump the bail as it has happened in the case before the Supreme Court. ( 10 ) IN fact the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ratilal Bhanji (supra) relied upon by the learned Advocate Shri Shah also does not support the petitioners. In fact in that case the Supreme Court has clearly observed that the delay in examination of the witnesses was caused entirely due to the laches of the prosecution. Therefore the Supreme Court has passed the order in favour of the accused. That is not the fact in the case on hand before us. Therefore the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court is of little hold to Shri Shah learned Advocate for the petitioners. ( 11 ) IN view of the above discussion. I do not see any merit or substance in this Application filed by the petitioners-accused for releasing them on bail and accordingly it fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged. Order accordingly. .