S. NARAYAN, J. ( 1 ) - This revisional petition is directed against the order dated 27. 5. 98 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in Criminal Misc. Case No. 210 of 1998 rejecting the prayer for bail on behalf of the petitioner in connection with D. R. I. F. No. 61/cal/app/98 of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Calcutta Zonal Unit, 8, Calcutta. The order is sought to be set aside invoking inherent power of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and, in the alternative, it was also orally prayed to pass suitable order for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. ( 2 ) PURSUANT to an information received by the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Calcutta an investigation was initiated and it was being carried out with respect to the basic allegation that M/s. Associated Industries were engaged in illegal importation of (i) RBD. Palmolin oil (ii) Mulberry Raw Silk (iii) HDPE (iv) Copper Cathode and evasion of customs duty and sale thereof running in crores of rupees. The accusation in the case was that More Group of industries, while using forged advance licence had imported the aforesaid articles and had sold those to M/s. Associated Industries. It is alleged that the present petitioner, S. S. Sharma being the trusted agent of More Group and also being a partner of M/s. Associated Industries had active involvement in the deal. ( 3 ) OBVIOUSLY, for the purpose of investigation/inquiry into the case, summons under section 108 of the Customs Act were issued directing the petitioner to attend the office of DRI at a particular time and date. Be it placed on the record on verification of certain papers, produced on behalf of the opposite party that such summons were issued for as many as six times, first of such commencing on 6. 4. 98 and the last one having been issued on 4. 6. 98. The petitioner admittedly did not respond to any of such summons by his appearance before the officers of the DRI and instead, he sought for an anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and his prayer as such, was allowed by an order dated 11. 5. 98 of the Chief City Sessions Judge, Calcutta in Criminal Misc. 5. 98 of the Chief City Sessions Judge, Calcutta in Criminal Misc. Case No. 176 of 1998, the extract of this order be placed as herein below:-"in the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with Dr. F. No. 61/cal/app/98 Superintendent of DRI, Calcutta Zonal Unit No. 8 he shall be enlarged on bail of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each on condition that he shall see the I. O. everyday at his office and shall not leave Calcutta without the previous permission of the learned CMM, Calcutta. The petitioner shall hand over his passport, if any, to the I. O. against proper receipt. This order of anticipatory bail will remain in force for a period of ten days from this date. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of accordingly. " ( 4 ) WHAT happened thereafter is that the petitioner having obtained an order of an anticipatory bail, appeared before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta on the very next day and sought for grant of regular bail under section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, This prayer was, however, rejected after due consideration of the submissions made on both the sides. The petitioner was, however, not taken in custody after refusal of regular bail and instead the Magistrate directed as follows:-"however, since the accused was granted anticipatory bail by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court under section 438 Cr. PC, I am inclined to allow time of one week to the accused in order to enable him to obtain bail order from the higher court in the light of observation made by the apex court in the case of K. L. Verma v. State and in view of the decision reported in 1997 C Cr. L. R. (Cal) 103. " ( 5 ) THEREUPON, the petitioner move the petition under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail by the Chief City Sessions Court, Calcutta, who refused the prayer by the impugned order dated 27. 5. 98 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 210 of 1998. L. R. (Cal) 103. " ( 5 ) THEREUPON, the petitioner move the petition under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail by the Chief City Sessions Court, Calcutta, who refused the prayer by the impugned order dated 27. 5. 98 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 210 of 1998. ( 6 ) THE ground for refusal of bail by the Chief City Sessions Court, Calcutta had two folds, one being that the petitioner, by not reporting himself to the I. O. , had violated the condition imposed on him at the time of granting anticipatory bail and, secondly because of the nature of the office alleged being as such, that the petitioner was not entitled to in enlarged at the present stage. ( 7 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner very emphatically urged that there was no act of violation of the condition of the anticipatory bail on the part of the petitioner, inasmuch as, there was, in fact, no arrest made of the petitioner subsequent to grant of the anticipatory bail and, in that view of the matter, there was neither necessity of his being enlarged on anticipatory bail or for abiding by the condition of the said bail to see the I. O. everyday in his office (as per terms of the anticipatory bail ). In this regard, I am, however, of the considered opinion that the petitioner would be most certainly supposed to have availed the protection/privilege of the anticipatory bail inasmuch as, it was only because of the anticipatory bail that no arrest could be effected during the course when he was making efforts for grant of regular bail right from the next following date i. e. 12. 5. 98 (after the grant of anticipatory bail ). If a litigant chooses to avail the protection/privilege of a court's order, it is quite naturally expected of him by way of an act of bonafide that he should abide by the terms and conditions imposed upon him by the said order. In that view of the matter, I do find myself in agreement with the observation of both the courts below that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the anticipatory bail by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, I do find myself in agreement with the observation of both the courts below that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the anticipatory bail by the petitioner. Not only this much, I would rather proceed ahead to take notice of the fact as referred to above that the petitioner has been avoiding to cooperate the investigation/inquiry inspite of issuance of summons for as many as six times right from the date of the first summons being 6. 4. 98 up to the last one being dated 4. 6. 98. Such an approach on the part of the petitioner may lead to an inference that any further protection given to him would impede the even course of inquiry or investigation into a serious allegation now pending, The effectiveness and utility of the inquiry may be very adversely affected which the DRI had to conduct under the Statutory provisions of the Customs Act. Apart from the aforesaid angle of view I have been also persuaded by the contentions raised on behalf of the opposite party that this relates to an economic offence of very serious nature with involvement of crores of rupees by way of evasion of customs duty. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons, aforesaid, this revisional petition has, no substance and I am of the view that the petitioner was not entitled to the remedy as sought for either by way of setting aside the impugned order or by granting regular bail. This revisional petition is thus dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed .