Judgment N. L. TIBREWAL, J. ( 1 ) THE question which has been seriously debated in this bail application is whether the general rule bail not jailt in non-bailable offences not punishable with death or imprisonment should be applied in smuggling cases of silver and gold, punishable U/s. 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter, referred to as the Act), specially when such activities have greatly increased in the State of Rajasthan on the border areas attached with Pakistan. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts may be set out in brief. On a secret information, a party of customs officers was picketed on ]odhpur-Ajmer road in the night intervening 31. 5. 1992 and 1. 6. 1992. At about 1. 00 in the night, they saw Truck No. RJ-14/ 9371, going towards Ajmer from Jodhpur. It was the same number which was passed on to the customs authorities by secret information. They d stopped the truck for search, but, the occupants succeeded running away, taking the advantage of darkness. Thereafter, in the presence of two independent persons, the truck was searched. In secret cavity under two speakers which were fitted in the truck, some packets covered by cloth were found which contained 390 biscuits containing foreign marking. These biscuits were got tested from a gold smith, who found that 262 biscuits were of gold and 128 were of silver coated with gold. The contraband articles (biscuits) and the truck were seized by the customs authorities U/s. 110 of the Act. The total weight of the gold of 262 biscuits was 30559. 680 grams having value of Rs. 1,27,09,604/ -. Similarly, the weight of silver biscuits was found 8077 grams which was valued at Rs. 58,154/ -. ( 3 ) THEREAFTER, on an inquiry from RTO office at Jaipur, it was revealed that the aforesaid No. RJ14/9371 was of a scooter and not of a truck. Then, on the basis of chasis number, further search was made from RTO office, Ajmer, then, it transpired that the real registration number of the said truck was RNZ 8121 and its registered owner was the accused petitioner, who is a resident of village Baghera in the district of Ajmer. The petitioner was summoned in the Customs Office at Jodhpur, where his statement was recorded U/s. 108 of the Act. The petitioner was summoned in the Customs Office at Jodhpur, where his statement was recorded U/s. 108 of the Act. In his statement, he admitted that he was the owner of the aforesaid truck, as well as, 390 gold and silver biscuits. He also admitted that the original number of the truck was RNZ 8121. For the seized biscuits, he stated that they were given to him by one Abdul of Jaisalmer and it was to be delivered at Bar-ki-Ghati to one Mahipal who was to be available in a gypsy of green colour. He also stated that for this work, he was to be paid Rs. 25,000/- and that he had changed number plate of the truck. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested on June 29, 92. ( 4 ) THE bail application filed by the petitioner in the court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, was dismissed by the learned Judge vide his order dated July 7, 1992. Hence, this application U/s. 439 Cr. P. C. for grant of bail has been moved by the petitioner before this Court. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no evidence to prima facie establish that the petitioner was engaged in the activities of smuggling of gold and silver. Counsel argued that at the best, the petitioner was only a driver and it cannot be presumed that he was having the know ledge of contraband articles which were lying hidden in a cavity under two speakers. He also argued that the maximum sentence for an offence U/s. 135 of the Act is seven years, and, as such, the normal rule to grant bail should be applied. The learned counsel further submitted that the trial of the petitioner is likely to be delayed and for more than 3 1/2 months he is in custody. According to the learned counsel, an accused cannot be kept behind the bar for an uncertain period as an under trial. Lastly, it was contended that the truck did not belong to him as it was sold and handed over to one Mobin Khan vide agreement dated 20. 5. 1992 and he can alone be held responsible for the contraband articles. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Custom Department, seriously opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. Lastly, it was contended that the truck did not belong to him as it was sold and handed over to one Mobin Khan vide agreement dated 20. 5. 1992 and he can alone be held responsible for the contraband articles. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Custom Department, seriously opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. He urged that the smuggling activities in the State of Rajasthan has increased enormously on account of wide border area attached with Pakistan. He argued that such activities is not only creating law and order problem in the State, but, has serious impact on the economy of the country. He further argued, in order to check such nefarious activities, the miscreants should be dealt with iron hand and should not be released on bail in the normal course. Learned counsel for the Custom Department submitted that the offences of smuggling of contraband gold and silver should not be equated with crimes of ordinary nature and if the petitioner is released on bail, then, the chances of repeating similar offence cannot be ruled out. Lastly, it was contended that the Court should strike a balance in such cases. I have given my careful consideration to the above submissions. There is no gain saying that in the State of Rajasthan, the smuggling activities have increased enormously on account of wide border area attached with Pakistan. The Court can take a judicial notice of this fact. It is also true that the offence of smuggling cannot be equated with ordinary crimes. It is also equally true that the offence U/s. 135 of the Act is punishable with seven years imprisonment. In the above background, I have to decide what order should be passed in the present case. ( 5 ) SO far the prima facie case is concerned, at this stage, it can be stated that the statement of the accused petitioner recorded U/s. 108 of the Act by a Gazetted Officer of Customs is admissible in evidence. This position of law is well settled after a judgment of the Apex Court in Illias v. The Collector of Customs, Madras. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute this legal position. This position of law is well settled after a judgment of the Apex Court in Illias v. The Collector of Customs, Madras. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute this legal position. In his statement u/s. 108 of the Act, the petitioner has confessed his guilt in clear terms and has given the entire story as to from where he had brought the contraband articles and where it was to be delivered. He was to be paid a big amount of Rs. 25,000/- for taking the gold and silver biscuits. These biscuits were having foreign marking. It is also noteworthy that the petitioner had changed the number plate of the truck to conceal its original number. Section 123 of the Act lays down the burden of proving that the articles are not smuggled goods to be on the person from whose possession the goods were seized. This section reads as under: Section 123. Burden of proving in certain cases. 1. Where any goods to which this section applies are seized under this Act in the reasonable belief that they are smuggled goods, the burden of proving that they are not smuggled goods shall be (a) in a case where such seizure is made from the possession of any person, - i. on the person from whose possession the goods were seized; and ii. if any person, other than the person from whose possession the goods were seized, claims to be the owner thereof, also on such other person; (1) in any other case, on the person, if any, who claims to be the owner of the goods so seized. (2) This section shall apply to gold (and manufactures thereof), watches, and any other class of goods which the Central Government may be notification in the Official Gazette specify. ( 6 ) THEREFORE, at this stage, it can be safely observed that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner to have committed the offence U/s. 135 of the Act. In a case where the offence is non- bailable, the bail cannot be claimed by an accused as of right. In such case, further consideration will arise and the Court will decide the question of grant of bail in the light of those further considerations. In a case where the offence is non- bailable, the bail cannot be claimed by an accused as of right. In such case, further consideration will arise and the Court will decide the question of grant of bail in the light of those further considerations. Those considerations have been set out by the Honble Supreme Court in The State v. Captain Jagjit Singh as under: It should then have taken into account the various considerations, such as, nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of the evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured as the trial, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or the State, and similar other considerations which arise when a court is asked for bail in a non-bailable offence. T (Emphasis provided) ( 7 ) IT is true that the Supreme Court was considering the question of bail in a criminal case where the accused was being prosecuted U/ss. 3 and 5 of the Indian Official Secrets Act, but, the principles laid down for bail are equally applicable in the present case. I do not agree with the contention of the, learned counsel for the petitioner that simply because this Court has wide powers in the matter of granting bail U/s. 439 Cr. P. C. , the general rule of bail should be applied and the petitioner, even though it is not in the larger interests of the public on he State, should be granted bail in a routine manner. If the offence is of a kind in which bail should not be granted considering its seriousness, the court should refuse bail even though it may have very wide powers U/s. 439 Cr. P. C. ( 8 ) IN State through Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Delhi v. Jaspal Singh Gill, the principles laid down in State v. Captain Jagjit Singh (supra) were again reiterated in the matter of grant or not to grant bail. On the ground of larger interests of the public or the State, the bail can be refused and this principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court. ( 9 ) THIS is one side of the coin. The other side cannot be overlooked while deciding the question of bail. On the ground of larger interests of the public or the State, the bail can be refused and this principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court. ( 9 ) THIS is one side of the coin. The other side cannot be overlooked while deciding the question of bail. The other side is that the accused should not be kept in jail for a longer period as an under trial and that the maximum punishment for the offence is seven years imprisonment. The accused- petitioner is a bona fide resident of village Baghera in, the district of Ajmer and there is nothing on the record to show that there is likelihood of his fleeing from justice. ( 10 ) I have already stated earlier that smuggling activities have increased enormously in the State of Rajasthan and it requires handling with iron hand to curb the same. On the slogan of libertyt, the Court should not be a party to allow nefarious activities of smuggling to go and checked by releasing the accused on bail in a routine manner on the principle of bail not jail which is applied in crimes of ordinary nature. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner should not be enlarged on bail at this stage. The application is, therefore, rejected. ( 11 ) HOWEVER, the Department should take proper steps for an early trial of the accused petitioner, and in case sufficient progress is not made in the trial in six months from today, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move fresh application for grant of bail. A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Special Court) Economic Offences, Jaipur. Application rejected