JUDGMENT 1. The facts of the case are that the head of Buddha's statue of sand stone has been recovered by the Customs Officers on checking at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi on 18.2.95, from a packet which was sent by the petitioner through DHL courier. The head of Buddha's statue is an antique piece. Consequently the petitioner was arrested and he was produced before Special Magistrate (Economic Offences) Jaipur, Rajasthan. The order of remand were passed by the Special Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur Rajasthan even after expiry of 15 days, from the date of arrest of petitioner. On 31.7.95 in the first bail application, it was argued that maximum sentence for the offence under section 135 of Customs Act is 3 years. Therefore, it was directed that the complaint be filed within one month. The application will be heard on merits on 30.8.95. 2. The complaint has been filed on 23.8.95 in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. 3. Shri Pareek, learned counsel for the Customs Department has raised preliminary objection that when the complaint has been filed in the court of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, this Court has no jurisdiction. 4. Shri Dhankar, counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that when the accused-petitioner has been detained under the remand order of Special Magistrate (Economic Offences) Jaipur Rajasthan, then this court has jurisdiction to grant bail to the petitioner. Even if it is taken that offence has been committed at Udaipur & Delhi, on that ground also this Court has jurisdiction under Section 186 (b) of Criminal Procedure Code. 5. Shri Pareek submitted that proceedings commenced only after filing of the complaint. He has not seriously objected that argument of Shri Dhankar that when Special Magistrate (Economic Offences) Jaipur, Rajasthan has no jurisdiction then the detention of the petitioner under his remand order is illegal. But he submitted that if the detention of the petitioner is illegal then he can move Habeas Corpus petition before the Division Bench. 6. Shri Dhankar has further argued that while the petitioner has been detained on the mistake of Customs Department, they have wrongly produced him before Special Magistrate (Economic Offences) Jaipur Rajasthan, because if they had any intention to file the complaint in the court of Addl. 6. Shri Dhankar has further argued that while the petitioner has been detained on the mistake of Customs Department, they have wrongly produced him before Special Magistrate (Economic Offences) Jaipur Rajasthan, because if they had any intention to file the complaint in the court of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi the accused should have been produced before that court after expiry of 15 days from the date of his arrest. Therefore, the respondents cannot take any benefit of their own mistake by arguing that this Court has no jurisdiction. He has also argued that the petitioner has been operated on 22.8.95, therefore, in any case, it is a fit case for interim bail. 7. Considering the submission of counsel for parties and the fact that when the complaint has been filed in the court of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate New Delhi though by mistake of Customs Department the petitioner has wrongly been detained under the remand order of Special Magistrate (Economics Offences) Jaipur Rajasthan and the fact that petitioner has been operated on 22.8.95 and also that this bail application has been filed against the rejection order of bail application dated 10.7.95 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in the interest of justice, I am inclined to grant interim bail to the petitioner for a period of 15 days from the date of his release. 8. It is, therefore, ordered that the petitioner Sharad Gandhi s/o Heera Gandhi be released on interim bail for a period of 15 days, from the date of his release, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the suns of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. one lac) with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each, to the satisfaction of Special Magistrate (Economic Offences) Jaipur Rajasthan with the stipulation that after completion of 15 days from the date of his release he shall surrender before the concerned jail, falling which necessary steps be taken for his arrest. 9. Within the period of interim bail, the accused-petitioner will be free to obtain appropriate order from the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. This bail application is disposed of, as indicated above. Bail application disposed of. *******