IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2008 / 20TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 3489 of 2007() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20/04/2007 IN DRI/CHN/VIII/10/13/06 IN CRMP.1122/2007 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E & O), ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ HABEEB RAHIMAN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.V.AHAMED KUTTY, FEROOK, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, COCHIN. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.M.C. No. 3489 of 2007 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 10-01-2008 ORDER Petitioner who is the accused in DRI/CHN/1/III/ before the Director of Revenue Intelligence, Kochi, challenges Annexure A4 and A5 order passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. 2. The prosecution case against the petitioner who is a licensed importer is that he had imported 15 consignments of medium density fibre boards though Cochin port during the period 2005-06 and had under invoiced the value of consignments in order to evade payment of Customs Duty . A crime was registered under Sec. 135 (1) (a) of the Customs Act. The petitioner was arrested on 15-6-2006. Eventhough his application for bail was rejected by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, (Economic Offences), Ernakulam this Court granted him bail as per order dated 21-6-2006 in B.A. No. 3652 of 2006. Conditions (iv) and (v) imposed by this Court while granting bail to to the petitioner are as follows: “iv) The petitioner shall deposit his passport within one week from his release, before the court below. Crl.M.C. No. 3489 of 2007 -:2:- v) The petitioner shall not leave the country unless ordered by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, (Economic Offences), Ernakulam”. 3. In compliance of the said condition the petitioner surrendered his passport before the court below. Since the petitioner is a licensed importer, he had to go to foreign countries in connection with his business. He, therefore, moved the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (Economic Offences), Ernakulam for release of his passport by filing C.M.P. 1122 of 2007. He also filed c.M. No. 1306 of 2007 seeking permission to go abroad. As per Annexure 4 and 5 orders dated 20-4-2005, the court below rejected both the applications for the reason that the accused is to be interrogated by the investigating agency and that if he is permitted to go abroad and if the passport is released to him, he may flee from justice. These orders are assailed in this petition. 4. The Assistant Solicitor General representing the respondents opposed the petition contending inter alia that the petitioner's presence is necessary for his interrogation and that if he is allowed to go abroad, he may flee from the country and will not be available during the investigation of the case and for the ensuing trial. 5. One of the conditions imposed by this Court while granting Crl.M.C. No. 3489 of 2007 -:3:- bail was that he shall execute a bond for Rs.28.5 lakhs in favour of the Commissioner of Customs, Kochi, as per the procedure. Yet another condition slapped on the petitioner was that he shall furnish bank guarantee for Rs. 10 lakhs, within three weeks from the date of his release. There is no dispute that the petitioner has complied with the above two conditions besides executing a bond for an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties. The petitioner was arrested on 15-6-2006. He was granted bail by this court on 21-6-2006. Now, for nearly 7 months, the petitioner has not been called for interrogation by the investigating agency. If they were really desirous of extracting relevant information from the petitioner, nothing prevented the investigating agency from interrogating the petitioner. The opposition came only when the petitioner sought permission to go abroad and release his passport for the said purpose Admittedly, the petitioner is not an Non-resident Indian. He is holding an Indian Passport and the chances of his fleeing from the country are remote. Merely because, he is an accused in a case involving evasion of customs duty, that is no reason for curtailing his freedom beyond a reasonable period. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to move the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam for release of the passport and for Crl.M.C. No. 3489 of 2007 -:4:- permission to go abroad both of which prayers shall be granted on appropriate conditions safeguarding the interest of the prosecution as well. Petitioner may file the necessary petitions within two weeks from today. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani.