THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.11853 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to modify the order, dated 05.08.2025, passed in Crl.M.P.No.389 of 2025 in HQPOR No.28 of 2023 by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under Economic Offences, Hyderabad, whereby, the petition filed by the petitioner seeking to grant interim custody of her passport bearing No.A57183199 for a period of three months and permission to leave the country, was allowed by imposing condition that the petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties, apart from other conditions.

2. Heard Sri Mir Mukarram Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved by the surety amount imposed by the trial Court, while granting interim custody of the passport. He further submitted that the trial Court has released the passport by imposing the condition that the petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties. He further submitted that on earlier occasion, when the petitioner was enlarged on bail, she has furnished surety of Rs.2,00,000/- and further, when interim custody of the passport was ordered on the first occasion, she was directed to furnish personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with one local surety and accordingly, the petitioner has furnished surety of Rs.2,00,000/-, but unfortunately, the petitioner could not take the passport and travel abroad and on the second occasion also, she got the order in her favour granting interim custody of the passport with one local surety, but she could not take the passport and travel abroad. Now, for the third time, she again filed the present application for interim custody of the passport and the trial Court vide impugned order, dated 05.08.2025, granted interim custody of the passport on execution of a personal bond for Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties. He further submitted that the surety amount may be set aside and the trial Court may be directed to release the passport of the petitioner on the already existing sureties in the Court, which were furnished on the first occasion.

4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC appearing for respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner herein is a Malaysian national and is alleged to have committed the offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, and gold was seized from her during the course of investigation. He further submitted that securing the presence of the petitioner would be difficult in case she leaves to abroad and that the trial Court has given a faithful consideration and imposed sureties, which are appropriate and hence, prayed not to reduce the same.

5. Perused the record.

6. The petitioner is admittedly a Malaysian national and has filed the present petition to grant interim custody of her passport. The trial Court has considered the facts on record. It is also not out of place to mention that the petitioner herein was granted bail on earlier occasion on furnishing sureties, one of which would be local surety, and the submission of the prosecution is that there is no possibility of the petitioner returning back to India and that she has to pay penalty of Rs.50,00,000/- imposed on her, if she intends to leave the country. Considering the facts and circumstances and the factual position, the trial Court has imposed certain conditions of executing a personal bond for Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties. There is no legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the fact that the petitioner herein is a Malaysian national, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court.

Hence, the same is upheld.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Miscella