Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Saranraj Anitha Rajendra Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 5 February, 2020

Author: V Shircy

Bench: V Shircy

B.A.257/2020
                                  1

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

   WEDNESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 16TH MAGHA, 1941

                      Bail Appl..No.257 OF 2020

      AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 5067/2019 DATED 04-01-2020 OF
      ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E&O), ERNAKULAM

 O.S. NO. 289/2019 OF AIR INTELLIGENCE UNIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM


PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:

               SARANRAJ ANITHA RAJENDRA PILLAI
               AGED 28 YEARS
               S/O.RAJENDRA PILLAI, ANIL BHAVAN, POZHIKKARA,
               PARAVUR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-691301

               BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN

RESPONDENTS:

       1       STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
               HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031

       2       THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS
               AIR INTELLIGENCE UNIT
               AIR CUSTOMS, INTERNATIONAL AIR PORT,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695024

               R2 BY SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM AJITHKUMAR,
               PP FOR CUSTOMS,COCHIN COMMISSIONERATE

OTHER PRESENT:

               PP FOR CUSTOMS SASTHAMANGALAM AJITHKUMAR

     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION          ON
05.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 B.A.257/2020
                                            2




                                         ORDER

Dated this the 5th day of February 2020 Application for regular bail.

2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No. 289 of 2019 of Air Intelligence Unit, Thiruvananthapuram registered for the offence punishable under Section 135(1) of the Customs Act.

3. The petitioner has been in custody since 17.12.2019.

4. The prosecution allegation is that this petitioner was travelling from Sharjah to Thiruvananthapuram on 16.12.2019. At about 7.15 p.m., when the petitioner came out through the Green Channel, immediately the officers of the 2nd respondent Unit intercepted him and examined him. On examination, they found a blue coloured cloth waist band containing two polythene packets covered with masking tapes that consist of gold in compound form and another polythene cover containing gold in paste concealed inside his underwear and thus a total quantity of 5257.200 grams B.A.257/2020 3 of gold was recovered. Thereby, he has committed the offences as alleged.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the investigation of the case has almost completed and the final report could be filed within no time. It is also submitted that no criminal antecedents have been reported against the petitioner.

6. Considering the period of detention undergone by him in custody and the present stage of investigation, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

Therefore, this application is allowed subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.
(ii) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the court concerned.
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required by him, in writing.
(iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the B.A.257/2020 4 court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.

Sd/-

SHIRCY V. JUDGE sb