TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Petitioner Granted Bail with Strict Conditions After 54 Days in Custody for Gold Smuggling at Calicut Airport.</h1> <h3>PULIKKIPPOYIL SHARAFUDHEEN Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS (AIU)</h3> The HC granted the petitioner bail under strict conditions after 54 days in custody for gold smuggling at Calicut International Airport. Despite the ... Seeking grant of regular bail - Smuggling of gold having a value more than Rs. 1.20 crores - gold in a compound form concealed in four capsules in the rectum of the petitioner - gold from inside the panties worn by the wife of the petitioner - HELD THAT:- Petitioner has been in custody since 19-5-2023. More than 54 days have elapsed, since the petitioner remaining in custody. Though investigation is stated to be still continuing, I am of the view that, further detention of the petitioner would amount to conviction before punishment. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that, petitioner can be released on bail subject to strict conditions. Bail application allowed. Issues involved:The petitioner seeks regular bail u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in a case involving recovery of gold worth over Rs. 1.20 crores from him and his wife at the Calicut International Airport.Details of the Judgment:- The respondent intercepted the petitioner and his wife at the airport, recovering gold from them.- The petitioner's wife was granted bail earlier, but the petitioner's application was rejected.- The petitioner has been in custody for over 54 days.- The Court opined that further detention would amount to conviction before punishment.- The Court allowed the petitioner's bail application with strict conditions, including a bond of Rs. 50,000 and cooperation with the investigation.- The petitioner is prohibited from intimidating witnesses, committing similar offences, tampering with evidence, or leaving India without permission.- Violation of bail conditions empowers the jurisdictional Court to consider cancellation.This judgment highlights the Court's consideration of the petitioner's detention period, the nature of the offence, and the need for bail conditions to ensure compliance and prevent potential interference with the investigation or judicial process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
