Consolidated Bail Applications in Bail Appl Nos.4458, 4489, 4509 and 4648 of 2019 (Sunil Kumar; Rashid P.K; Sareena Shaji; Biju M. v. State of Kerala)

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF JULY 2019 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1941** ## **Bail Appl..No.4458 of 2019** **O.R.NO.DRI/CoZU/tvm/06/2019 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **SUNIL KUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS S/O MOHANAKUMARAN THAMPI, TC-8/435-3, SANKARAMANGALAM, SWATHI LANE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.D.FEROZE SRI.K.ANAND (A-1921) SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE STANDING COUNSEL, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031, (OR NO DRI/COZU/TVM/06/2019, SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DRI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM).** **BY ADV. SRI.S.MANU, CGC, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE KERALA REGIONAL UNIT** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.07.2019, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4489/2019, Bail Appl..4509/2019, Bail Appl..4648/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Bail Appl..Nos.4458, 4489, 4509, 4648 of 2019** **2** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF JULY 2019 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1941** **Bail Appl..No.4489 of 2019** **O.R.NO.DRI/CoZU/tvm/06/2019 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **RASHID.P.K, AGED 22 YEARS S/O.HAMSA, THACHERUPPADIKKAL HOUSE, NEDUMPARAMBU, OORAKAM, VENGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.D.FEROZE SRI.K.ANAND (A-1921) SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY** **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE, REP. BY THE STANDING COUNSEL, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682031, (OR NO.DRI/COZU/TVM/06/2019 SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DRI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM).** **BY ADV. SRI.S.MANU, CGC, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE KERALA REGIONAL UNIT** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.07.2019, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4648/2019, Bail Appl..4509/2019, Bail Appl..4458/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Bail Appl..Nos.4458, 4489, 4509, 4648 of 2019** **3** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF JULY 2019 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1941** **Bail Appl..No.4509 of 2019** **O.R.NO.DRI/CoZU/TVM/06/2019 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **SAREENA SHAJI AGED 46 YEARS D/O ABDUL WAHEED MOITHEEN, ALAMITTATH, CEMINARYPADY, PARAVOOR KAVALA, ALUVA.** **BY ADVS. SRI.M.A.MOHAMMED SIRAJ HARIKRISHNAN.S SRI.AJAY BEN JOSE SRI.MANJUNATH MENON SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.R.GITHESH SRI.SACHIN JACOB AMBAT SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **THE SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **BY ADV. SRI.S.MANU, CGC, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE KERALA REGIONAL UNIT** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.07.2019, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4648/2019, Bail Appl..4489/2019, Bail Appl..4458/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Bail Appl..Nos.4458, 4489, 4509, 4648 of 2019** **4** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF JULY 2019 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1941** **Bail Appl..No.4648 of 2019** **O.R.NO.DRI/CoZU/tvm/06/2019, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** **PETITIONER/S:** **BIJU.M. AGED 41 YEARS S/O. MOHANAN, MANAKTTUVILAKAM, KARIYIL, KAZHAKOOTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADVS. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.P.JAYACHANDRAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DRI-605 036, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, DRI.** **BY ADV. SRI.S.MANU, CGC, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE KERALA REGIONAL UNIT** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.07.2019, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4509/2019, Bail Appl..4489/2019, Bail Appl..4458/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Bail Appl..Nos.4458, 4489, 4509, 4648 of 2019** **5** ## **O R D E R** The petitioners are accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 7 in O.R. No.DRI/CoZU/TVM/06 of 2019 of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Thiruvananthapuram, registered for the offence punishable under Section 135 (1) of the Customs Act. 2. The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated thus: The first and the second accused landed in the International Air Port, Thiruvananthapuram, on 13.05.2019 at about 7.45 a.m. from Dubai. On getting prior information, the DRI officials made surveillance at the airport and the first and the second accused were accordingly, intercepted. In the search, the first accused was found in possession of 25 kg of gold and the second accused was found in possession of a declaration submitted by the second **Bail Appl..Nos.4458, 4489, 4509, 4648 of 2019** **6** accused at the Dubai Air Port stating that she was carrying 24 kg of gold. The first and the second accused were questioned and their statements were recorded. From the statements of the first and the second accused, the involvement of the seventh accused was revealed. From the statement of the second accused, the involvement of the third accused was revealed. The fourth accused was an employee of M/s PPM Chains, which used to collect the smuggled gold from the accused. M/s PPM Chains used to manufacture the gold ornaments and distribute the same to the jewellery shops. 3. The first and the second accused were arrested on 13.05.2019. The fourth accused was arrested on 21.05.2019. The seventh accused surrendered before the Investigating Officer on 31.05.2019 as directed by this Court. 4. Heard. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor has no serious **Bail Appl..Nos.4458, 4489, 4509, 4648 of 2019** **7** objection in granting bail to the petitioners, other than the petitioner in B.A.No.4648 of 2019, who is the seventh accused. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the seventh accused is the person, who introduced other persons to the smuggling gang. It has been further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the seventh accused smuggled gold on four occasions. It has been further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the first accused smuggled gold on nine occasions. 6. It is not disputed that the seventh accused is a lawyer practicing in Attingal and the third accused is the wife of the seventh accused, who is also a lawyer practicing in Attingal. 7. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the seventh accused that a group of lawyers caused obstruction to the DRI officials from entering into the house of the learned Magistrate, when the DRI officials produced A7 **Bail Appl..Nos.4458, 4489, 4509, 4648 of 2019** **8** before the learned Magistrate at his residence, and that was the reason why the application filed by A7 is opposed by the DRI officials. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that he has no information with regard to the above said submission made by the learned Counsel for the seventh accused. 8. It has been fairly conceded by the learned Public Prosecutor that there is absolutely no material to connect the third accused with the commission of the offence in this case, even though there are statements to the effect that A3 had indulged in smuggling activities on previous occasions. It appears that even though A3 was not involved in the offence alleged in this case, A3 was in custody from 15.05.2019 to 31.05.2019, in connection with the above crime. Admittedly, A3 is the wife of A7, who was not available for interrogation by the DRI officials during the said period. Even though it is alleged that the seventh accused smuggled gold on four **9** **Bail Appl..Nos.4458, 4489, 4509, 4648 of 2019** occasions, no crime has been so far registered against him in respect of the said allegations. The learned Public Prosecutor has fairly conceded that the offence alleged against the petitioners is compoundable. However, for compounding the offence, there should be consensus from the department as well. 9. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that even though A1 smuggled gold on nine occasions, there is no material to show that A1 introduced any other person to the smuggling gang. However, the seventh accused had introduced so many persons to the smuggling gang. The financial transactions made by A7 would also indicate that A7 used to indulge in smuggling activities, submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor. It has been further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that A7 used to hand over the gold to M/s PPM Chains. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the major part of the investigation as regards **Bail Appl..Nos.4458, 4489, 4509, 4648 of 2019** **10** petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 4 has been almost complete. 10. Having gone through the relevant inputs, it appears that the contention of the seventh accused that the 3[rd] accused was arrested only for the purpose of compelling the seventh accused to surrender before the Investigating Officer, as the 3[rd] accused is the wife of the seventh accused, cannot be viewed lightly. It appears that no gold was seized from the seventh accused. The gold in this case was seized from the first accused. It is alleged that the first accused smuggled gold on nine occasions. Even then the prosecution has no serious objection in releasing the first accused on bail. However, the prosecution opposes the application of the seventh accused, who allegedly smuggled the gold on four occasions, stating that he introduced people to the smuggling gang. It appears that the third accused, who was not involved in the above crime, was arrested and detained in custody without any justification. No crime was also **Bail Appl..Nos.4458, 4489, 4509, 4648 of 2019** **11** registered against the third accused, in connection with the alleged prior incidents. The seventh accused is the husband of the third accused. No gold was seized from him. This being the situation, I do not find any justification for the prosecution to oppose the application filed by the seventh accused, when the prosecution has no objection in granting bail to the first accused, who was caught red-handed with 25 kg of gold. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the stage of investigation, I am of the view that the further detention of the petitioners is not necessary for the progress of investigation of the case. In the said circumstances, I am inclined to allow these applications. In the result, these applications stand allowed and the petitioners shall be released on bail on condition of each of the petitioners executing a bond for Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five thousand only) each, with two solvent sureties each, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Magistrate and subject to the following conditions: ## **Bail Appl..Nos.4458, 4489, 4509, 4648 of 2019** **12** 1) The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Monday and Friday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. for two months and thereafter, on every Monday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. for another three months or till the filing of the complaint, whichever is earlier. 2) The petitioners shall not get involved in any other offence during the pendency of this case. 3) The petitioners shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses or in any way tamper with the investigation. 4) The petitioners shall not leave the limit of the Sessions Division, Thiruvananthapuram, without the leave of the learned Magistrate, until further orders. 5) The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation. 6) The petitioners shall be released on bail only after convincing the court below with regard to the address, **Bail Appl..Nos.4458, 4489, 4509, 4648 of 2019** **13** where they will be residing, after being released on bail. Needless to state that if the petitioners get involved in any other offence of similar nature, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law, without any reference to this court, as held by the Apex Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [AIR 2006 SC 100]. Sd/- ## **B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR (JUDGE)** RK/02.07.2019