Kerala High Court
Muhammed Ali Haji P.P vs Union Of India on 21 April, 2022
B.A.No.2151/2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 1ST VAISAKHA, 1944
BAIL APPL. NO. 2151 OF 2022
CRIME NO.O.R.NO.6/2019 OF DRI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.10:
MUHAMMED ALI HAJI P.P.
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O. SHRI. MUHAMMED PALASSERI PULIKKAL, PALASSERI
PULIKKAL HOUSE, KUNNUMPURAM, KUTTOOR, MALAPPURAM,
PIN - 676305
BY ADVS.
BALAMURALI K.P.
MANU TOM
SHAJI T.M.
RENIL IQUBAL K.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY OFFICE OF THE
ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY ADVS.
ASG OF INDIA
S.MANU
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. S. MANU. (SR. STANDING COUNSEL FOR DRI )
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.2151/2022 2
ORDER
This is an application for regular bail.
2. The petitioner is the one among the accused in O.R.No.6/2019
registered by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI),
Thiruvananthapuram alleging commission of offences under the provisions
of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.5.2019, two
passengers namely, Akash Shaji and Sareena Shaji, were intercepted at the
Thiruvananthapuram International Airport where they arrived on a flight
from Dubai, carrying 25 numbers of gold bars of 24 Carat purity, totally
weighing 24998.61 grams and valued at Rs.8,17,45,455/- which they had
attempted to smuggle into India. A declaration receipt regarding the gold
made before the Dubai authorities was also recovered. The statements
recorded from the aforesaid persons under Section 108 of the Customs Act
revealed that the gold was being smuggled for one Abdul Hakkeem, who was
working as Manager of M/s.PPM Chains at Thiruvananthapuram of which
the petitioner herein is a Director/Partner. The said Abdul Hakkeem is also a
close relative of the petitioner herein. It is alleged that the gold was smuggled
for the business of M/s.PPM Chains with the active knowledge and support of
the petitioner and the other accused.
4. Sri. P. Vijayabhanu, the learned senior counsel, who appeared
for the petitioner on the instructions of Advocate Manu Tom, the learned
counsel for the petitioner, would primarily contend that the petitioner has
been wrongly implicated in the case. It is submitted that there is absolutely
no material collected by the DRI which would indicate that the petitioner was
in any manner connected with the alleged smuggling of gold into India. It is
submitted that the petitioner has no direct connection in the running of the
business of PPM Chains and that the business is being run by the son of the
petitioner and other relatives. It is submitted that a search of the residence of
the petitioner and other business premises connected/associated with the
petitioner did not result in the recovery of any incriminating material. It is
submitted that the passengers who allegedly smuggled gold into India on
13.5.2019 are absolute strangers to the petitioner and he has no knowledge of
their activities. It is submitted that in the Month of November 2019, notices
were issued for adjudication to several persons including the petitioner
herein and the petitioner had filed a reply which is identical to the statement
given earlier before the DRI officials stating that the petitioner has no
connection with the gold seized on 13.5.2019 and completely denying any
connection with the alleged smuggling of gold. It is submitted that the
petitioner is engaged only in legitimate business and he has no connection
with any illegal activity. It is submitted that the petitioner is a 61 year old
man with various ailments including heart ailments and his continued
detention is not necessary for the purposes of investigation. It is pointed out
that the alleged incident of smuggling took place on 13.5.2019 and the
petitioner was arrested only on 2.3.2022 while preparing to board a flight to
the United Kingdom. It is submitted that the petitioner has been in custody
from 2.3.2022. It is submitted that the continued incarceration of the
petitioner, is a grave injustice and the petitioner is entitled to be released on
bail.
5. Sri. Suvin. R. Menon, who appeared on behalf of the DRI
(representing Sri. S. Manu, Standing Counsel for the DRI) would vehemently
oppose the grant of bail. It is pointed out that a decision was taken to arrest
the petitioner only after a thorough investigation revealed the clear role of the
petitioner in the smuggling activity. It is submitted that the investigation
conducted thus far has revealed that the attempt made on 13.5.2019 is only
one among the numerous smuggling activities indulged in by the petitioner
or others at his behest. It is submitted that the statements recorded from
various persons including several employees of the petitioner revealed that at
least 680 Kgs of gold have been smuggled into India by the petitioner in
connivance with the other kingpins including one Vishnu Somasundaram,
Biju. M and the aforesaid Hakkeem. It is submitted that the mobile phones
and other incriminating material recovered from the phones of some of the
employees of the petitioner itself show that a huge quantity of smuggled gold
had been brought into India at the instance of the petitioner. It is submitted
that several of the accused are not cooperating with the investigation. It is
submitted that the petitioner and the other accused are not cooperating with
the investigation and are either absconding or are giving false and vague
statements. It is submitted that immediately after the seizure of the gold on
13.5.2019, the petitioner and his son Benzeer P.P., had absconded and had
failed to appear before the investigating officer. It is submitted that the
petitioner was arrested while he was trying to flee the country through the
Calicut Airport on 2.3.2022. It is submitted that the call data records
accessed by the DRI reveal that the petitioner was in touch with the other
accused in the case. It is submitted that it is normally very difficult to
identify and nab the main persons behind a smuggling syndicate. It is
submitted that the investigation of the case is only progressing and the grant
of bail to the petitioner at this stage may not be conducive as it is very likely
that the petitioner will influence the witnesses at least some of whom are
employees of the petitioner. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner is
not entitled to be released on bail at present.
6. I have considered the contentions raised. I have also perused
certain records including statements recorded from the various persons
forming part of the case diary. Considering the serious nature of the
allegations and taking note of the fact that several of the persons who have
given statements before the DRI incriminating the petitioner are employees
of the petitioner, who are likely to be influenced or manipulated, I am of the
opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to bail at this point of time. If the
petitioner is granted bail, the risk of witnesses being influenced or
manipulated is greater since several of the persons who have given
statements against the petitioner are also employees of the petitioner. There
is no material to suggest that the health condition of the petitioner is so
precarious that he is to be released on bail. Further, according to the
prosecution, the petitioner was trying to flee from India. There are chances
of the petitioner absconding if he is released on bail. Further, I cannot ignore
the specific contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
that this is possibly one of the rare cases where the kingpin or master mind
behind the smuggling activities has been identified and arrested. Therefore, I
am clear in my mind that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.
7. The Supreme Court in Prahlad Singh v. NCT Delhi;
(2001) 4 SCC 280 has set out the factors that be kept in mind by the Court
while deciding bail applications. Paragraph 8 of that judgment reads as
follows:-
8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of
well settled principles having regard to the circumstances of each case
and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the court
has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in
support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will
entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused,
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable
possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial,
reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the
larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations.
It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail
the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing"
instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant
of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against
the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima
facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not excepted, at this
stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt."
This position of law has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in various
cases. Applying the law laid down in Prahlad Singh (supra), the
petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. The bail application fails and
it is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
acd
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2151/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE SHOW
CAUSE NOTICE DATED JANUARY, 2020.
Annexure2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED FOR
THE PERSONAL HEARING.
Annexure3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE
SUMMONS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
Annexure4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
11/03/2022 IN CRL.M.P. NO. 504/2022.
Annexure5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT MEDICAL
RECORDS OF THE PETITIONER.
