Sat Pal ( 1 ) THIS is a petition for grant of bail under Section 439of the Criminal Procedure Code. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that the Directorate of Revenueintelligence (Hqrs.), New Delhi, received an intelligence report that oneconsignment which was being imported in the name of Mr. Khalid A1shorbaji. Attache, Embassy of State of Palestine, contained contraband gold. Accordingly, the said consignment was thoroughly examined in the presenceof said Diplomat which resulted in the recovery and seizure of 300 foreignmarked gold biscuits of 10 tolas each from the cooking range and 200 foreignmarked gold biscuits of 10 tolas each from the washing machine. In hisdetailed note dated 25/01/1992 Mr. Khalid stated that Trilochansingh Khurana arranged the import of these goods but he denied theknowledge of ownership of 500 gold biscuits. ( 3 ) IT is alleged that the statement of Trilochan Singh Khurana wasrecorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. 1962 (for short called theact ) on 25/01/1992. In his statement he stated that he was dealingin the import of electronic and household articles for Diplomats and Embassay staff and the above mentioned gold was smuggled at the instance of thepetitioner. He also stated that for the import of such consignment, he usedto charge Rs. 50,000. 00 for each shipment. He also stated that in July1991 the petitioner smuggled 400/500 pieces consisting of gold biscuitsalongwith items of electronic. ( 4 ) IT is then alleged that after this the statement of the petitionerwas also recorded under Section 108 of the Act on 25/01/1992. Thepetitioner stated that about a year ago he came into contact with one Hajiaziz-Al-Raba of Dubai and said Haji offered him Rs. 1000. 00 per gold biscuitof 10 tolas each for smuggling the same into India. He further stated that onhis return to India he contacted co-accused Trilochan Singh Khurana of Diplomatic Agency and in terms of settlement arrived at with him, a sum of Rs. 50,000. 00 as commission for each consignment containing gold biscuits was, tobe paid to said Trilochan Singh Khurana. He also stated that in July 1991trilochan Singh Khurana arranged import of one consignment in the name ofone Diplomat and the said consignment contained 750 foreign marked goldbiscuits of 10 tolas each and the said biscuits were handed over by thepetitioner to a person as per instructions of said Haji of Dubai. He also stated that in July 1991trilochan Singh Khurana arranged import of one consignment in the name ofone Diplomat and the said consignment contained 750 foreign marked goldbiscuits of 10 tolas each and the said biscuits were handed over by thepetitioner to a person as per instructions of said Haji of Dubai. He alsoadmitted that he received a sum of Rs. 7,50,000. 00 as commission from thesaid Haji of Dubai against the aforesaid consignment and out of this amounthe paid Rs. 50,000. 00 to the co-accused Trilochan Singh Khurana. ( 5 ) IT further stated that in December 1991, said Haji of Dubai askedthe petitioner to arrange a diplomatic consignment so that another lot of goldbiscuite could be sent to India and thereafter one order was procured by coaccaged Trilochan Singh Khurana in the name of Mr. Khalid Al Shorbaji. This consignment wag despatched by flight No. EK-702 dated 14/01/1992 which on examination resulted in recovery and seizure of 500 foreignmarked gold biscuits as stated above. ( 6 ) THEREAFTER, both the petitioner and co-accused Trilochan Singhkhurana were arrested on 26/01/1992. ( 7 ) MR. Herjinder Singh learned Counsel for the petitioner submittedthat the present case is based on the statements of the petitioner and of Trilochan Singh Khurana recorded under Section 108 of the Act. He furthersubmitted that except these two statements, there is no evidence involvingthe petitioner in the case. Learned Counsel drew my attention to the application submitted by the petitioner on 26/01/1992 itself before theduty Magistrate (copy of which is at page 15 of the paper book)wherein he retracted his statement recorded under Section 108 ofthe Act and specifically stated that he was beaten and harassed and underpressure some papers were signed by him. He also drew my attention toanother application filed by the petitioner on the same date before the Dutymagistrate wherein again he alleged that the officers of DRI physicallytortured him and made him to write/sign some papers under dictation. Hefurther submitted that in the same way the co-accused Trilochan Singhkhurana also retracted hit statement vide his application dated 26/01/1992 submitted before the Duty Magistrate. Learned Counsel contended thatthe retracted confession of the petitioner as well as of the co-accused is not asubstantive piece of evidence and it can only be used to lend assurance ifthere is other independent evidence. Hefurther submitted that in the same way the co-accused Trilochan Singhkhurana also retracted hit statement vide his application dated 26/01/1992 submitted before the Duty Magistrate. Learned Counsel contended thatthe retracted confession of the petitioner as well as of the co-accused is not asubstantive piece of evidence and it can only be used to lend assurance ifthere is other independent evidence. In suport of his submissions learnedcounsel placed reliance on Supreme Court judgments in Haroom Haji Abdullav. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 832 Haricharan Kurmi v. State ofbihar, AIR 1968 SC 1163, ajudgment of Bombay High Court in Stale ofmaharashtra v. Sayed Mohamed If ashim Al Musavi, 1991 (51) ELT 41 anda recent judgment of this Court in Cr- M (M) No. 929 of 1993-Rwf Singhalv. Union of India, dated 5/05/1993. ( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel further submitted that under Section 135 of theact the maximum punishment is seven years and the petitioner has been injail from 26/01/1992 till 12/01/1993 when he was grantedbail becuuse of heart ailment. In this connection learned Counsel drew myattention to the medical certificate issued by Dr. Rakesh Verma. Heartspecialist of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi wherein it hasbeen stated that in view of the recent unstable angina the petitioner has beenhospitalized from 31. 31993 to 24. 1993 (CR No. 8875 ). It is further statedin the certificate that in view of the shortage of beds, he could not behospitalised for long and he was required to attend the hospital at regularintervals say one/two week interval. ( 9 ) LASTLY learned Counsel submitted that the orders of detention inrespect of the pititioner as also the co-accused Trilochan Singh Khuranahave already been quashed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 1 2/02/1992. ( 10 ) HE, therefore, contended that in view of the facts mentionedabove, the petitioner should be released on bail. ( 11 ) MR. Sawhney, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of therespondent, submitted that in the present case the recovery and seizure ofgold is to the tune of Rs. 3 crores. He further submitted that the cookingrange and washing machine were opened in the presence of the Diplomatmr. Khalid Ahmad Al Shorbaji who in his note had stated that the goods inquestion were imported into India through Trilochan Singh Khurana, theintending agent. Trilochan Singh Khurana in his statement stated that theimport of consignment was at the instance of the petitioner. He further submitted that the cookingrange and washing machine were opened in the presence of the Diplomatmr. Khalid Ahmad Al Shorbaji who in his note had stated that the goods inquestion were imported into India through Trilochan Singh Khurana, theintending agent. Trilochan Singh Khurana in his statement stated that theimport of consignment was at the instance of the petitioner. Learned Counselsubmitted that in view of the statements which are quite comprehensive anddetailed ones, the question of retraction of the said statements becomes irrelevant. He drew my attention to the statement of the petitioner recorded undersection 108 of the Act wherein he had given full history as to how he camein contact with Haji of Dubai. The amount of commission he got in theearlier consignment and the amount he would have got in the presentconsignment has also been stated. ( 12 ) THE learned Counsel further submitted that a mere bald statement that the petitioner was pressurised to give a particular statement shouldnot have any effect on point that the statement was not voluntarily given,particularly in view of the fact that the statement is a detailed one. In supportof his submissions learned Counsel placed reliance on a Supreme Court judgment in Hem Raj Denial v. State of Ajmer. AIR 1954 SC 462 . ( 13 ) THE learned Counsel also submitted that. the complaint was filedagainst the petitioner and co-accused Trilochan Singh Khurana on 1 8/03/1992 and the case could not proceed as the petitioner and co-accusedhad been seeking adjournments, on one pretext or the other and as a resultof that only one witness out of 11 witnesses could be examined so far. He,therefore, contended that the petitioner is not entitled for bail. ( 14 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions madeby the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the statements of the petitioner and of the co-accused Trilochan Singh Khuranarecorded under Section 108 ofthe Act. From the statements ofthe petitionerand Trilochan Singh Khurana I find that these statements contain elaboratedetails as to how the petitioner came into contact with Haji of Dubai andfurther how he contacted the intending agent and also details about hisearlier consignment of 750 gold biscuits for which he received a commission ofrs. 7,50,000. 00 from Haji out of which he paid Rs. 50,000. 00 to Trilochansingh Khurana. 7,50,000. 00 from Haji out of which he paid Rs. 50,000. 00 to Trilochansingh Khurana. Similarly, Trilochan Singh Khurana in his statement hasgiven complete details regarding his arrest in New York in a drugs case in1985. Trilochan Singh Khurana has also stated that in the event of specificshipment he was to get Rs. 50,000. 00 for such shipment and clarifying themeaning of specific shipment, he stated that it meant where smuggled contraband gold was to come. He has also admitted that at an earlier occasion thepetitioner smuggled over 400/500 packets in the shipment consisting of goldbiscuits alongwith items of electronics. He also admitted that even in thepresent consignment be would have got a sum of Rs. 50,000. 00 from thepetitioner in case the smuggled gold had not been detected and seized by thedri officers. ( 15 ) IN view of the detailed statements of both the accused, primafacie, for the purpose of deciding this petition, it cannot be said that thesestatements were obtained under pressure and coercion. As stated hereinabovethe petitioner is allegdiy not only involved in the present consignment butin his statement he has admitted that on an earlier occasion he was involvedin respect of the consignment of 750 gold biscuits for which he was paidrs. 7,50,000. 00 by Haji of Dubai. The fact that the gold was concealed in thecooking range and washing machine at the instance of the petitioner providescorroborative evidence regarding the gold being smuggled from Dubai intoindia. In view of the fact that the petitioner is involved in the smmuglingactivities in more than one consignment and on more than one occasioninvolving gold worth crores of rupees as admitted by him in his statement, Iam of the view that it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner. The view I have taken, finds support from a decision of this Court incr. M (M) No. 641/91- Sanjay Verma v. State, decided on 8/04/1991. ( 16 ) IN this connection I may refer to the following observations froma judgment of the Supreme Court reported in State of Gujarot v. Mohanlaljitamalji Porwal and Another, AIR 1987 SC 1321 :- "the entire Community is aggrieved if the economic offenders whoruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murdermay be committed in the heat of moment upon passions beingaroused. A murdermay be committed in the heat of moment upon passions beingaroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculationand deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless ofthe consequence to the Community. A disregard for the interest ofthe Community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting thetrust and faith of the Community in the system to administerjustice in an even handed manner without fear of criticism from thequarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eyeunmindful of the damage done to the National Economy andnotional Interest. " ( 17 ) AS regards the judgments cited by the learned Counsel for thepetitioner on the retraction of statement, I am of the view that these judgments are not relevant to the facts of the present case as the statement of thepetitioner is quite comprehensive and detailed one and is corroborated by thestatement of the co-accused Trilochan Singh Khurana which is again adetailed one. As regards the case of Ravi Slnghal (supra), the ratio of thatjudgment is also not applicable to the facts of the present case as in thatcase the main point which weighed with the learned Single Judge of thiscourt was that the petitioner in that case was discriminated inasmuch as themain accused were not apprehended whereas the petitioner was apprehended. But in the present case, there is no allegation of such discrimination. ( 18 ) IN the result I find no merit in the petition and the same isdismissed. ( 19 ) THE petitioner was granted interim bail granted in January 1993on the ground that he was suffering from unstable angina and as the interimbail was extended from time to time in view of the medical report ofdr. Rakesh Verma, Heart Specialist of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital. New Delhi vide letter No. NIC/3610/93 dated 6/04/1993 (copy of whichis at page 117 of the paper book ). In this report it has been stated that inview of the shortage of beds he cannot be hospitalised. Since the report is ofearly April 1993, I direct the petitioner to appear within a week from thedate of this order before the Head of Cardiology Department/cardiologistof Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi, who will submit the latestreport of the petitioner to this Court directly within a week thereafter. Forthe purpose of interim bail, the case is adjourned to 18/06/1993. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi, who will submit the latestreport of the petitioner to this Court directly within a week thereafter. Forthe purpose of interim bail, the case is adjourned to 18/06/1993. Meanwhile, the interim bail is extended till the next date of hearing on the gameterms and conditions. ( 20 ) I further direct that a copy of the last para of this order be sentto the Medical Superintendent. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, Newdelhi, for information and compliance.