( 1 ) THIS a petition for grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner submitted documents for clearance of consignment which arrived at Inland Container Depot, Pargarti Madan, New Delhi, from Singapore via Madras on 7/07/1990 which on checking was found to contain silver weighing 4000 Kgs. valued at Rs. 2,66,000/- and compressors valued at Rs. 57,72,000/ -. It is further alleged that the documents were found to be bogus and after presenting the documents, the petitioner slipped away and went underground and was arrested by CBI in another case. Later on he was taken in custody in this case while he was in jail. It is also alleged that the statement of the petitioner under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1968 (in short the Act) was recorded wherein he admitted his involvement in the fabrication of the documents with the knowledge that the contraband articles have been smuggled. ( 3 ) SHRI Harjinder Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the only evidence against the petitioner is his own alleged statement recorded under Section 108 of the Act. He submitted that the said statement was obtained under pressure while the petitioner was in jail. He also submitted that on 14-2-1992 when his said statement was recorded, he was already an accused as he had been arrested on 29-1-1992 in connection with the case registered by the CBI under Section 120b read with Sections 420/467/468/471, IPC and Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He, therefore, contended that the aforesaid statement is of no relevance and is not admissible under law. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on a Supreme Court judgment reported in the case of Ramesh Chander v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1970 SC 940 : (1970 Cri LJ863 ). ( 4 ) THE learned counsel further submitted that in case the Department has treated the statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 108 of the "act as a reliable piece of evidence, then in terms of that very statement, the main accused are four other persons namely, Ravinder Singh Bhasin alias Gorkha, Dev Raj Behl alias Deva/raj Kumar, Kulbir Singh alias Lovely and Subhash alias Billa. But none of these persons have been apprehended so for. He also submitted that as per this statement these four persons had promised the petitioner Rs. 2,00,000/- for assistance in carrying out the clearance of the container from I. C. D. It has been stated therein that the petitioner in fact has not been paid any money nor any advance was given to him. The learned counsel, therefore, contended that the petitioner has been discriminated and falsely implicated and such discrimination is contrary to law. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on a judgment of this Court reported in Binoy Jechob v. CBI, (1993) 49 DLT 640 wherein such discrimination was adversely commented upon by this Court. It may be pointed out here that this judgment, on the point of discrimination, has been followed by another learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Ravi Singhal v. Union of India in Crl. M (M) 929/92 decided on 5/05/1993. ( 5 ) LASTLY, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been in jail since 19/02/1992, except for a period of 15 days when he was granted parole and the maximum punishment in such a case is seven years. He, therefore, contended that the petitioner should be released on bail subject to any condition which this Court may deem fit and necessary to impose upon the petitioner. Learned counsel also submitted that the trial is likely to take a long period as only one witnes has been partly examined so far. ( 6 ) MR. Kanojia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the four persons mentioned in the statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 108 of the Act, were not arrested because at the initial stage they had obtained stay order from the Calcutta High Court. He further submitted that show cause notice has already been issued to these persons and the case against them is still being inquired into. Learned counsel further submitted that the value of the goods seized is to the tune of Rs. 3,23,72,000/ -. He further submitted that the petitioner was not an accused under the Customs Act when his statement under Section 108 of the Act was recorded. He, therefore, contended that the judgment in the case of Ramesh Chander (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 3,23,72,000/ -. He further submitted that the petitioner was not an accused under the Customs Act when his statement under Section 108 of the Act was recorded. He, therefore, contended that the judgment in the case of Ramesh Chander (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. He also submitted that the case registered with the CBI pertains to different consignments. In support of his contention learned counsel placed reliance on two Supreme Court judgments reproted in the case of Verra Ibrahim v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1976 SC 1167 : 1976 Cri LJ 860) and in Jethamal Pithaji v. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay, AIR 1974 SC 699 : (1974 Cri LJ 621 ). ( 7 ) IN rejoinder arguments, Mr. Harjinder Singh submitted that the question as to whether a person should be an accused under the Customs Act or under any other Act is an arguable question. He also submitted that this Court has granted bail even in a case where the alleged recovery was l18 gold biscuits and in support of this submission he referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Sanjeev Khanna v. State in Criminal M (M) 1572/91 decided on 13-8-1991. He also referred to a judgment of Supreme Court reprted in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Nainmal Punjaji Sah, (1969) 3 SCC 904 , where the Supreme Court had to deal with a case involving transaction of contraband worth Rs. 100 crores and still bail was granted. ( 8 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the documents on record. In view of the fact that four persons who are alleged to be main accused as per statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 108 of the Act, had not yet been apprehended whereas petitioner had been in jail for the last over one year and further only one witness has been partly examined so far, I am of the view that this is a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, I direct that petitioner be admitted to bail on furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge. Accordingly, I direct that petitioner be admitted to bail on furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge. This order will be subject to the following conditions : (i) The petitioner will not leave India except with the prior permission of the trial Court. (ii) The surety must be a local resident of Union Territory of Delhi. (iii) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence directly and indirectly. ( 9 ) I may, however, point out that the observations made hereinabove shall not have any bearing on the merits of the case. Order accordingly.