IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2010 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2824 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.DRI/CHN/VIII/10-3-2010 OF THE DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE OF COCHIN REGIONAL UNIT. (S): PETITIONER ------------------------------ K.GOPINATH, NERIATHARAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, EZHAKADAVU P.O., CHERUKOLE. BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE REGIONAL UNIT, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.2824 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 24th May, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for bail. 2. According to prosecution, petitioner was intercepted with about Rs.24,00,000/- of fake Indian currency notes in his baggage, while he was coming out of the Airport. Two persons were waiting to receive the contraband articles, but petitioner supplied fake address and details relating to those persons also. Petitioner was arrested on 10.3.2010. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner jumped visa and as per the procedure in Gulf countries, petitioner will have to report before the Labour Officer and accordingly, he reported and he was arrested. Prior to this, he had to entrust baggage with some other persons. Before boarding flight to India, the baggage was returned to petitioner at the Airport and he got hardly any time to verify the contents of the baggage. Petitioner was trapped into this offence and he is totally innocent of the allegations made, it is submitted. He had given the details of the persons, who had given the baggage at the Airport, with their photographs and phone numbers. If they are BA NO.2824/10 2 questioned, his innocence will be revealed, but respondent is not prepared to question them. No purpose will be served by putting petitioner in jail. He has completed statutory detention in the prison and 60 days are over. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is taking steps against the proceedings under the COFEPOSA Act. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner is in custody under the COFEPOSA Act and even if petitioner is granted bail, it is of no use. However, it is conceded that investigation is not over and the statutory period of detention is over. If bail is granted, it may be on stringent conditions, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that bail can be granted on stringent conditions. Hence, the following order is passed : Petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only)with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned, on the following BA NO.2824/10 3 conditions : (i) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Monday and Thursday between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m., until further orders. (ii) Petitioner shall surrender his passport before the Magistrate concerned, within seven days from today. (iii) Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate any witness or tamper with evidence. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs