Dismissed

Shahabas Mohammed v. the Senior Intelligence Officer

Kerala HC17 Feb 2017Crl.MC/201/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the conditions imposed on his bail by the lower court, seeking permission to go abroad and lifting a bank guarantee condition. The High Court found the lower court's strict conditions justifiable and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Permission to go abroad was denied; the strict bail conditions imposed by the lower court were upheld.

Shahabas Mohammed Vs the Senior Intelligence Officer — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/28TH MAGHA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 201 of 2017 ()

¶6

-------------------------AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER IN CMP 1749/2016 AND CMP.NO.1749/2016 IN OR.NO.12/2013 OF DRI/CRU/CALICUT

¶7

------------------------------

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/1ST ACCUSED:

¶9

SHAHABAS MOHAMMED S/O.AHAMMED KOYA, EDIYADIPOYIL HOUSE, MADAVOOR CALICUT

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.M.A.MOHAMMED SIRAJ SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

THE SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, CALICUT.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU BY SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM AJITHKUMAR, PP FOR CUSTOMS

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl.MC.No. 201 of 2017 ()

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

ANNEXURE-A1 TRUE COPY OF BAIL ORDER INC.M.P NO.165 OF 2014 IN O.R NO.12 OF 2013 OF DRI CALICUT DATED 21.1.2014 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E.O) ERNAKULAM.

¶19

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.8.14 IN CMP NO.1251/14 IN O.R. NO.12/2013 OF DRI CALICUT.

¶20

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF ORER IN CRL.M.C 3058/16 DATED 14/7/16

¶21

ANNEXURE A4 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 16.11.16 IN CMP. NO 1749/16 AND CMP. NO.1750/16.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

NIL

¶24

R.AV //TRUE COPY//

¶25

PA TO JUDGE

¶26

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶27

Crl.M.C.No.201 of 2017

¶28

Dated this the 17^th day of February, 2017

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The petitioner herein is the first accused in OR.No.12/2013 of DRI/CRU/Calicut for offence punishable under section 135 of the Customs Act.

¶31

The case was registered on 8.11.2013 on an allegation that the petitioner herein was operating smuggling activities of gold from abroad into India. It was reported that on 8.11.2016, two female passengers were intercepted with Gold on 08.11.2016 while they were returning from Dubai and 6kgs of gold ornaments worth Rs.1,83,72,000/- were recovered from them. They disclosed that they have brought 23kgs and 16kgs of gold on three occasions. Their confession statement further revealed that, the petitioner herein along with accused Nos.2 and 3 were the engaged in organising, financing and transporting huge quantity of gold ornaments. The petitioner herein who was under arrest was thereafter granted bail, after the expiry of the statutory period, inter

¶32

Crl.M.C.No.201 of 2017 2

¶33

alia, on a condition that he shall surrender his passport. He thereafter filed applications before the court below as CMP.No.1750/2016 and CMP.No.1749/2016, seeking permission to go abroad and also to lift the condition No.4 in the bail order dated 17.08.2016 in CMP.No.1457/2016. The above condition prohibited him from leaving the country. This was opposed by the DRI. However, the court below allowed it in part, ordering release of the passport for four months, subject to few conditions. It included a condition that, he shall furnish a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. It was also directed that the permission to leave the country shall only be for a period of four months stated above. This is under challenge in this Crl.M.C on the ground that the conditions imposed is onerous.

¶34

The prayer sought by the petitioner herein was strongly opposed on behalf of the respondent DRI. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner herein is that, though several proceedings were initiated against him there is no legally sustainable material now to

¶35

Crl.M.C.No.201 of 2017 3

¶36

establish the guilt of the petitioner. It was also noted that, though he was detained under COFEPOSA for some

¶37

time, it was set aside by the COFEPOSA advisory board.

¶38

It is pertinent to note that the allegation against

¶39

the petitioner is that, he was instrumental along with the others in smuggling huge quantity of gold ornaments to India, through various channels. It has also come on record that, he was released on bail subject to certain conditions after the expiry of the statutory period. The learned counsel for the DRI placed before me an order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, (E.O) Ernakulam in CMP.No.1251/2014 in OR.No.12/2013 by which bail granted to him was cancelled for committing the breach of the bail conditions. It was also pointed out that, in paragraph 2 of the objections filed by the DRI, there is a specific reference that during the COFEPOSA period he was instrumental in smuggling activities. On 20.03.2014. DRI had registered a case at New Delhi International Air Port, when two named persons who were intercepted had revealed that the smuggling racket was run by the

¶40

Crl.M.C.No.201 of 2017 4

¶41

petitioner herein.

¶42

It is also brought out that the petitioner herein was arrested on 11.8.2016 by the DRI officials. Two crimes were thereafter registered, on an allegation that he had attacked the DRI officials. Yet another one was that, he was found in possession of cocaine and an offence under NDPS Act was registered. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that both the cases cannot survive since the facts on record do not indicate such an allegation against the petitioner herein. Even the allegation of possession of cocaine relates to very small quantity, it was contended. The crux of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner herein is that, individually taken none of the case filed against him will survive. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to offer any other property, including immovable property either of his own or that of his wife in lieu of the conditions regarding the bank guarantee.

¶43

Having regard to the entire materials on record,

¶44

Crl.M.C.No.201 of 2017 5

¶45

I feel that it is not a case in which the permission ought to have been granted. However, the court below has justifiably chosen to impose very strict condition, which is now under challenge. Having expressed my view on the above, I feel that it is not a fit case in which the condition imposed by the court below is liable to be interfered with.

¶46

Crl.M.C fails and accordingly it is dismissed.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶49

R.AV

¶50

//True Copy//

¶51

PA to Judge

Shahabas Mohammed v. the Senior Intelligence Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahabas Mohammed v. the Senior Intelligence Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shibu Vs State of Kerala

Midhun P Vs State of Kerala

Rashid Vs State of Kerala

Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Jabir Vs State of Kerala

Firoz Vs the State of Kerala