Kesavan Neelameham vs The Superintendent Of Customs

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 21.09.2026 for the alleged offence under Sections 132, 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act 1962, in OR No. 12 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, a Singapore citizen, was intercepted at Coimbatore International Airport on 20.09.2026, and two gold chains weighing 835 grams, valued at Rs.1,31,93,000/-, were allegedly recovered from his possession without declaration. Hence, the case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case, and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the entire quantity of 835 grams of gold has already been seized by the Customs authorities and therefore, no further recovery is required from the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court, and hence, prayed for the grant of bail.

Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent Police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner was intercepted at the airport while attempting to bring 835 grams of gold chains, valued at Rs.1,31,93,000/-, without declaring the same before the Customs authorities. He further submitted that the petitioner had failed to produce valid documents for the lawful importation of the gold and that the nature and value of the gold seized disclose the seriousness of the offence. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner.

I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.

It is a case of alleged smuggling of gold worth Rs.1,31,93,000/- by a foreign national through the Green Channel. According to the prosecution, on 20.09.2026, the petitioner arrived at Coimbatore from Singapore and was intercepted at the Green Channel, during which two gold chains weighing 835 grams, valued at Rs.1,31,93,000/- were recovered from his possession. The petitioner was arrested on 21.09.2026 and has been in judicial custody since then. The gold has already been seized. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner’s passport has already been seized. Considering the period of incarceration of the petitioner already undergone by the petitioner, nature of the allegations and the fact that his passport has already been seized, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to certain conditions.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, and on further conditions that:

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of 30 days and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

[c] the petitioner shall furnish his residential address and contact mobile number to the Investigating Officer and he shall not leave India without prior permission of the Jurisdictional Court;

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[e] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

[f] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.