Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 51167
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
ASSU S.V – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
Bail Appl. 10318/2023
THOMAS T.VARGHESE, ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM, V.T.LITHA PHILIP, T.VARGHESE, SRI. SREELAL N. WARRIER, SMT.T.V.NEEMA
Anticipatory bail was denied due to serious allegations and potential hindrance to the investigation under the Customs Act.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Anticipatory bail - The petitioner sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in connection with a non-bailable offence under the Customs Act, 1962 - The court found that the allegations against the petitioner were serious and that granting bail would hinder the investigation. (Paras 1, 9)
(B) Investigation - Cooperation with investigation - The petitioner claimed to have cooperated, which was disputed by the respondents, indicating a lack of cooperation and involvement in the alleged offence. (Paras 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, employed abroad, returned to India and was detained at the airport with his passport impounded without prior notice. He was summoned regarding an inquiry into a gold smuggling case, which he denied any connection to.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the allegations against the petitioner were serious and that granting bail would impede the investigation.
Issues: The main issues were the petitioner’s alleged involvement in gold smuggling and whether anticipatory bail should be granted given the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the gravity of the allegations warranted the dismissal of the anticipatory bail application to ensure a thorough investigation.
Result: Anticipatory bail application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. employment history of petitioner (Para 3) |
| 2. detention at chennai airport (Para 4) |
| 3. summons regarding gold seizure (Para 5) |
| 4. opposition to bail application (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. gravity of allegations (Para 9) |
ORDER
Apprehending arrest, the petitioner has filed this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail.
2. The petitioner states that he has been served with a summons issued by the third respondent directing him to appear before the second respondent, and the petitioner apprehends that he will be arrayed as an accused in some criminal case by the respondents alleging commission of a non-bailable offence under the Customs Act, 1962 and that he will be arrested and detained.
3. The petitioner has been employed in the United Arab Emirates since 2005-2006 for different spells of time. In between, he was employed in China during 2014/15. For the past six years the employed in a Cafeteria in Sharjah.
4. The petitioner came to Chennai on 23.10.2023 from Dubai. He was detained by the Immigration authorities at Chennai International Airport on his arrival, and his passport was seized and impounded. A true copy of the receipt issued to him by the Bureau of Immigration, Chennai International Airport, dated 23.10.2023, is produced herewith and marked as Annexure A1. It is stated in Annexure A1 that the impounded passport is being sent to to Regional Passport Office, Kozhikode, for further cause of action. The petitioner had not received any letter of intimation from any authority regarding the impounding of his passport or containing any other directions at any time earlier before his passport was impounded on 23.10.2023. Annexure A1 does not explain why the petitioner's passport was seized and impounded.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a summons dated 01.11.2023 issued by the third respondent directing him to appear before the second respondent at 10.00 a.m. On 7.11.2023. A true copy of that summons issued by the third respondent dated 01.11.2023 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure A2. Annexure A2 summons states that the petitioner has been called regarding an enquiry in connection with the seizure of 2326.48 grams of gold at Air cargo (UB) at Calicut Airport in January 2023. The petitioner is in no manner connected with such an incident, and he is unaware of such an incident.
6. The respondents opposing the bail application have filed a statement that reads as follows:-
“4. As a result of further investigation conducted, it was found that the person who facilitated the illegal import by way of importing cargo of many persons from Dubai using the Passport copy collected from Shri Abdu Raoof through Shri Irfan, was one Shri Ashraf, S/o.Mohammed, Vayangattil House, P.O.Kumminiparamba, Malappuram. Shri Ashraf was summoned and his statement was recorded on 16.1.2023. Shri Ashraf in his voluntary statement inter-alia admitted the offence and stated that he acted on behalf of one Shri Noujas P.K, owner of M/s.Best Cargo Express, Dubai. He also stated that he was an employee of M/s.Best Cargo Express, Karipur. He collected the Passport copy from Shri Abdu Raoof and forwarded the same to Shri Noujas, Dubai for sending cargo of many person to Calicut in the name of Shri.Abdu Raoof, as unaccompanied baggage for a remuneration of Rs.5,000/- Shri.Asharaf further stated that he had given Rs.5,000/- to Shri.Abdu Raoof as remuneration as per the instructions of Shri Noujas for getting his passport copy for importing cargo in his name. Being the person who facilitated the import of cargo, Shri Asharaf was also arrested and remanded to judicial custody and later released on bail.
5.As per the statement of Shri Ashraf, the package from which the gold had been seized was sent by one Smt. Khadin Fareeda Umer Farukh, located at Dubai to one Shri Karud Abdul Basit Yunus Bhai, located at Gujarat. Shri Karud Abdul Basit Yunus Bhai had come to Air Cargo Office for claiming the c
