JUDGMENT : Mohammad Rafiq, J. This habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Arpit Jain with the prayer that respondent Union of India be directed by issuance of writ of habeas corpus to release him from illegal detention and custody on such terms and conditions as may be deemed just and proper in respect of Case No.F.No.VIII(48)AP/12/2017 registered by the Customs Department, Jaipur, pertaining to Criminal Complaint No.48/2017 pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur Metropolitan, in which cognizance has been taken vide order dated 15.01.2018. 2. Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is in jail in a matter where cognizance against him has been taken for bailable offences under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, ‘the Act of 1962’). The cognizance has been taken by the court only for bailable offence. Section 132 of the Act of 1962 provides for punishment, which may extend to two years and that is a bailable offence. So far as Section 135 of the Act of 1962 is concerned, the penalty provided therein is depended on the value of the goods and the tax evaded, which would determine whether it is bailable or not. If the market value of the goods exceeds one crore of rupees or the duty evaded or attempted to be evaded exceeds fifty lakhs rupees, it is non-bailable otherwise it is bailable. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that the petitioner was allegedly taken into custody by the Customs Department at Jaipur Airport at around 3:30 AM on 12.11.2017. He was not immediately presented before the Court of the concerned Magistrate. However, on 13.11.2017 at 2:00 pm the petitioner was presented by one Mr. Prem Raj Jogwal, Inspector (Customs) Airport Jaipur, before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur Metropolitan, who remanded the petitioner in judicial custody. While the petitioner was in custody on 12.11.2017, he was beaten and subjected to assault. His statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Act of 1962 under duress and coercion. The petitioner, by way of an application, pointed out this to the Magistrate concerned and also submitted that his signatures have been obtained on blank and typed written pages and that his mother and brother have also been threatened. His statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Act of 1962 under duress and coercion. The petitioner, by way of an application, pointed out this to the Magistrate concerned and also submitted that his signatures have been obtained on blank and typed written pages and that his mother and brother have also been threatened. The medical examination of the petitioner indicated that there was abrasion on his right knee. The petitioner moved a bail application before this Court while the investigation was pending. This Court, by order dated 18.12.2017, dismissed the bail application. After completion of investigation, a complaint was filed in the competent court on 15.01.2018. The allegations made against the petitioner therein is to the effect that the petitioner was carrying foreign currency notes equivalent of the value of INR 96,24,012/- and Indian Currency Notes of the value of Rs.26,400/-, without any approval or permission from the Reserve Bank of India as per the provisions of Section 3 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (for short, ‘the Act of 1999’) read with Regulations 3, 5 and 7 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Export and Import of Currency) Regulations, 2015 (for short, ‘the Regulations of 2015’). Two cellphones were recovered from the petitioner, out of which one cellphone model Samsung Galaxy Note-3, allegedly carried pictures of calculation sheets of foreign currency. The Customs Department, based on these calculation-sheets, allegedly concluded that those pertained to foreign currency that were carried abroad earlier from foreign currency that were carried abroad earlier from India and amounted to Rs.5,89,35,511.03 and therefore maintained that the value of currency notes, after clubbing previous transactions, was over Rs.1 crore, and therefore the offence was bailable. 4. It is submitted that so-called slips found in the digital form in the mobile of the petitioner and recovery thereof are all concocted and no certificate under Section 138C of the Act of 1962 or Section 65B of the Evidence Act was filed along-with the complaint. Further loose slips are in note books and in any case not admissible under Section 34 of the Evidence Act. The petitioner moved second application for grant of bail before this Court on 30.01.2018, which was rejected vide order dated 14.02.2018 on the ground that filing of charge-sheet/complaint does not amount to change of circumstance. Further loose slips are in note books and in any case not admissible under Section 34 of the Evidence Act. The petitioner moved second application for grant of bail before this Court on 30.01.2018, which was rejected vide order dated 14.02.2018 on the ground that filing of charge-sheet/complaint does not amount to change of circumstance. At that time, the learned counsel, who argued the second bail application, was not aware of the fact that cognizance in the matter has been taken on 15.01.2018. Copy of the order dated 14.02.2018 has been placed on record of the petition. This order sows that the cognizance has been taken only for the offence that foreign currency seized from the petitioner on 12.11.2017 was only worth Rs.96,24,012/- and for no other currency. In these circumstances, the petitioner moved third bail application before this Court, which was rejected vide order dated 27.02.2018 on the ground that fact of taking cognizance was available to the petitioner even when the second bail application was filed and decided on 14.02.2018. 5. As to what is the order of cognizance, learned counsel for petitioner cited two judgments of the Supreme Court in S.R. Sukumar Vs. S. Sunaad Raghuram, (2015) 9 SCC 609 and Fakhruddin Ahmad Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Another, (2008) 17 SCC 157 . Learned counsel also relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar Vs. Deokaran Nenshi and Another, (1972) 2 SCC 890 and Udai Shankar Awasthi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2013) 2 SCC 435 , and argued that the offence is complete when it is done and that the act of the petitioner in the present case was not continuing offence. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2013) 16 SCC 31 , learned counsel argued that even after dismissal of three bail applications by this Court, habeas corpus petition would be maintainable. 6. Mr. R.D. Rastogi, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent Union of India, opposed the writ petition and argued that filing of the present petition is nothing but an abuse of process of the law. The petitioner has already preferred three consecutive bail applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before this Court detailing each and every facts, which he has raised in the present petition. The petitioner has already preferred three consecutive bail applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before this Court detailing each and every facts, which he has raised in the present petition. This Court, after affording full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner each time, rejected those bail applications respectively vide orders dated 18.12.2017, 14.02.2018 and 27.02.2018. The argument which the petitioner is now taking that cognizance was confined to Rs.96.5 lakhs only and not the total amount of Rs.6.85 crores, was very much available when the second bail application was argued before this Court on 14.02.2018 as the order of cognizance has been passed much before that on 15.01.2018. 7. Learned Additional Solicitor General argued that Regulations 3, 5 and 7 of the Regulations of 2015 and Regulation 2A(iii) of the Foreign Exchange Management (Possession and Retention of Foreign Currencies) Regulation, 2015, prohibits any traveler, visiting abroad, to possess foreign currency beyond US $2000 or approximately Rs.1,31,000/-, which clearly has been violated by the petitioner. It is impermissible under the Customs Act to carry such prohibited items under the provisions of Sections 132 and 135(1)(A), 135(1)(B), 135(1)(C) of the Act of 1962. So far as merits of the case including applicability of Section 65B of the Evidence Act is concerned, the petitioner can raise the same before the learned trial court. 8. Learned Additional Solicitor General cited judgment of the Supreme Court in Manubhai Ratilal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (2013) 1 SCC 314 , to argue that habeas corpus petition is not to be entertained when a person is committed to judicial custody or police custody by the competent court by an order which prima facie does not appear to be without jurisdiction or passed in an absolutely mechanical manner or wholly illegal. 9. Upon considering the rival submissions and perusing the material on record, we find that filing of the present petition is indeed nothing but sheer abuse of the process of the court. 9. Upon considering the rival submissions and perusing the material on record, we find that filing of the present petition is indeed nothing but sheer abuse of the process of the court. When already three consecutive bail applications of the petitioner have been rejected by this Court, his contention that the complaint of which cognizance has been taken by the trial court refers to the amount which being less than rupees one crore, would be cognizable offence, whereas a careful reading of the complaint, copy of which has been produced on record as Annexure-5, clearly discloses that the complaint in its para 4.1 refers to the amount of Rs.96.5 lakhs approximately, and the foreign currency notes were found in his possession on 12.11.2017 but also refers to the amount of foreign currency notes worth Rs.5,89,35,511/- with reference to the print out of the slips obtained from his Samsung Galaxy Note-3 mobile, which were signed by the petitioner and also by the attesting witnesses. This Court in the habeas corpus petition cannot go beyond legality or otherwise of those allegations to hold that the offence in the present case would be bailable if the aforesaid amount is excluded from consideration. There is absolutely no justification to take such a view for this Court in the present case particularly when this argument was raised in the consecutive three bail applications before this court, which have been dismissed. The remedy of the petitioner in these circumstances, as held by the Supreme Court in Manubhai Ratilal Patel, supra, would be to assail orders of rejection of bail applications before the Supreme Court or assail the order of cognizance before this Court. The present habeas corpus petition is therefore dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to be deposited by the petitioner with the Rajasthan High Court Legal Services Authority within a period of one month, failing which the matter be again listed before this Court for enforcement of the order. 10. This also disposes off the Stay Application No.3664/2018.