Disposed¶18

The Superintendent of Customs v. Mohd Khalid Alam

Madras HC18 Feb 2025CRL OP/26670/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, CRL OP No. 26670 of 2024, decided 18-02-2025 by Sunder Mohan, J. Bail cancellation petition filed by Customs Prosecution against bail granted to Mohd.Khalid Alam by order dated 13.09.2024. Bail order left undisturbed in view of respondent's cooperation with investigation; Court clarified that observations in the bail order do not affect the prosecution's right to establish its case at trial. No statute or precedent discussed.

What did the court decide?

The criminal original petition is disposed of without setting aside the bail order dated 13.09.2024; the trial Court's observations therein are clarified as not affecting the petitioner's right to establish its case against the respondent at trial. ¶18

The Superintendent of Customs Vs Mohd Khalid Alam — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CRL OP NO. 26670 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18-02-2025

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶5

CRL OP NO. 26670 of 2024

¶6

The Superintendent Of Customs Prosecution (sea), Office Of The Principal Commissioner Of Customs, Preventive Commissionerate, Custom House, Chennai-1.

Petitioner(s)

Mohd.Khalid Alam

Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.P.Kumar, Special Public Prosecutor For Respondent(s): Mr.Mansoor Ali for Mr.A.K. Jayaraj

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The petitioner, seeks cancellation of the order dated 13.09.2024 passed by the trial Court granting bail to the respondents. The learned public Prosecutor appearing for the petitioner fairly submits that respondent has been cooperating with the investigation and complying

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

1/5

¶16

CRL OP NO. 26670 of 2024

¶17

with the conditions imposed in the bail order. He further submitted that the petitioner is only aggrieved with the observations made in the impugned bail order; which would affect the right of the petitioner to prove its case against the respondent before the trial Court.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid submission made out by the learned public Prosecutor, this Court is of the view that the impugned order need not be set aside. However, it is made clear that the observations made by the trial Court in the impugned order shall not affect the petitioner's right to esatblish its case against the respondent in the trial. Accordingly,this criminal original petition is disposed of.

¶19

18.02.2025

¶20

vca

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

2/5

¶23

CRL OP NO. 26670 of 2024

¶24

To,

¶25

1.The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.II),

¶26

Egmore, Chennai.

¶27

2.The Superintendent Of Customs Prosecution (sea), Office Of The Principal Commissioner Of Customs, Preventive Commissionerate, Custom House, Chennai-1.

¶28

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court Madras.

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

3/5

¶31

CRL OP NO. 26670 of 2024

¶32

SUNDER MOHAN,J.

¶33

vca

¶34

CRL OP NO. 26670 of 2024

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

4/5

¶37

CRL OP NO. 26670 of 2024

¶38

18.02.2025

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

5/5

The Superintendent of Customs v. Mohd Khalid Alam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Superintendent of Customs v. Mohd Khalid Alam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sai Prashanth Vs the State Rep by

John Elangovan Vs the State Rep.by Its Inspector of Police

Parameshwari Vs the State Rep. by, the Inspector of Police

V.Murugan Vs the State Rep by

Mani Alice Kuruttu Mani Vs The Inspector of Police

Purushottam Vs Inspector of Police