Solairaj vs State

T.V. Thamilselvi, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 14.12.2022 for the alleged offence under Section 135 of Customs Act, 1962 in R.R. No.30 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of prosecution is that on a secret information about illegal smuggling of gold from foreign countries on concealing the same in home appliance and also in their backages, the respondent initially intercepted four passengers and likewise, they also intercepted another 5 passengers, who had arrived at Chennai airport and on search, they recovered 2.200 grms of crude gold from the petitioner from his checked in backage inside a hammer driller, which is tailed with the boarding tag affixed in the petitioner's boarding pass. Hence, the complaint was registered against the petitioner.

The learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected with the alleged offence. He would submit that already his engagement was conducted and his marriage is scheduled to be convened on 23.01.2023. He would also submit that when he came to India for his marriage, he was falsely implicated in this case, however, he was made to believe that he is taking only a drilling machine, but only after search made by the respondent agency, he came to know that gold was kept inside the machine, thereby he did not know about the gold kept inside the driller machine. He would submit that he has not at all committed any of offence as alleged by the respondent police and he will abide by any condition imposed by this court. He would further submit that the investigation is almost completed and that the petitioner has been suffering incarceration for more than 20 days from 14.12.2022. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent would submit that totally, there are 9 accused involved in this case and 2.200 kgs. of gold was illegally transported and gold was seized from them. He would submit that 2 kgs. of gold was recovered from this petitioner and the investigation is still pending. Furthermore, the authorities conducted search in the petitioner's house, wherein as per the confession given by his family members, they ascertained the fact that marriage was fixed to this petitioner and a copy of mahazar enclosed in the typed set of papers at page No.47 reveals the entire facts of the case. He would also submit that if he is released on bail, he would tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation and the investigation is almost completed. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

Considering the above facts and circumstances, and also considering the fact that the marriage of this petitioner scheduled to be convened on 23.01.2023 and also the fact the investigation almost completed and considering the period of incarceration suffered by this petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant interim bail to the petitioner for the period of sixty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order subject to the following conditions:

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each, in which one surety must be a blood surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I), Egmore, Chennai, and on further conditions that:

(a) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;

(b) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police thrice a week on every Monday, Wednesday and Sunday at 10.30 a.m. except the date of marriage for the period of two months and he shall cooperate for the investigation;

(c) the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature;

(d) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

(e) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(f) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the 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)AIR SCW 5560];

(g) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

Post the matter for reporting compliance on 27.02.2023.