Judgment : All these petitions are heard together and a common order is passed. 2. The petitioner is the Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Directorate, Government of India, Ma-dras-6. He filed Crl.O.P. Nos.4752 to 4754 of 1995 to cancel the bail granted to the respondents/accused 1 to 3 by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I.), Madras-8 on 7. 1995. 3. The facts are: On information received to the effect that three persons have been regularly purchasing various foreign exchange in Travellers Cheques and currencies at Madras and sending the same to Singapore through passengers in illegal and clandestine manner, who are going to Singapore by concealing the same in bags containing vegetables, magazines, etc., the Enforcement Directorate, during the course of surveillance of the van transporting vegetables and magazines, intercepted and searched the Maruti van which resulted in seizure of foreign exchange to the tune of Rs.60 lakhs. The learned Magistrate initially dismissed the application for bail on 26. 1995. However, on 7. 1995 he granted bail to the respondents herein. When the matter was seized by this Court, he has further released condition on 8. 1995. 4. The apprehension of the petitioner is that the respondents being outsiders may tamper with the witnesses and hamper the investigation and the offence being of serious nature, does not call for grant of bail. The foreign exchange regulation is enacted in national interest and the court has to take the broad factual situation contemplated in the Act and by granting of bail amounts to throttling the investigation or the national interest on whimsical grounds. The learned Judge who has rejected the bail, consequently granted bail. When this Court seized the matter also relaxed the condition. This conduct of the learned Judge shows where sensitive questions do arise for consideration, he has not exercised constraint or taken note of the gravity of the offence, position of the parties, the likelihood of hindrance to the investigation and the object of the Act. But when once bail has been granted, the consideration for cancellation is totally a different cancellation of bail is the harsh remedy to be resorted only when there is material to show misuse of liberty and that the accused is likely to flee from justice or any other exceptional circumstances. 5. But when once bail has been granted, the consideration for cancellation is totally a different cancellation of bail is the harsh remedy to be resorted only when there is material to show misuse of liberty and that the accused is likely to flee from justice or any other exceptional circumstances. 5. In the instant case, the only circumstance urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though notice was served on certain witnesses, they have not appeared before the petitioner. Mere allegation that they have not appeared before the petitioner is not sufficient, unless the non-appearance is due to and the instance of the respondent/ accused persons. The petitioners have ample power to enforce the presence of the witnesses. Unless there is material to show that at the instance of the respondents, they are preventing from appearing before the petitioner, I see no merit in the contention that the non-appearance of the witnesses amounts to misusing the liberty by the respondents/ accused persons. Learned Magistrate while relaxing the condition has not adverted to the inconvenience to the petitioner to secure their presence for interrogation. Courts should always bear in mind while imposing condition and granting bail that policies of the State shall not be sacrificed at the altar of the individual liberty. Having regard to the gravity of the offence, the condition imposed by the learned Magistrate calls for reconsideration. Learned counsel for the respondents/ accused also has no objection to reconsider the conditions and impose any condition, enuring the presence of the respondents before the petitioner. This submission is placed on. record. Condition is modified as under: .(a) The respondents shall not leave the jurisdiction of Madras without permission: .(b) The respondents shall appear before the petitioner twice a day at 10.00 a.m. and 6.00 p.m. and also as and when required: and (c) The respondents shall not tamper with the witnesses or put obstacles to the investigation. All the petitions are disposed of accordingly.