G KUMAR Vs. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRL.M.P.Nos.5143 and 5144 of 1989 are petitions for bail filed by the two accused in O.S.No.l70 of 1989-RD=R.R.No.82 of 1989and O.S.No.169 of 1989-RD respectively on the file of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Prosecution, Custom House, Madras-1. CRL.M.P.No.5080 of 1989 is a petition by one other accused in the same case (O.S.No.171 of 1989-RD) praying for directions to the respondent, who is the Assistant Collector of Customs, Prosecution, to expedite filing of the complaint. CRL.M.P.No.5245 of 1989 is a petition by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Prosecution, Madras, to set aside the order granting bail to the petitioner in CRL.M.P.No.5080 of 1989 made in CRL.M.P.No.1333 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Madras. For the sake of convenience the petitioner in CRL.M.P.Nos.5143,5144 and 5080 (respondent in CRL.M.P.No.5245 of 1989), will, hereinafter be referred to as the accused in the course of this order.

(2.) FOR the disposal of these petitions a few facts need narration. The accused were arrested at Minambakkam, (Madras) Airport on 26.3.1989 for alleged smuggling of gold from Malaysia. The gold, which was concealed in the baggages brought by them, was seized by the customs authorities. The accused were questioned by the prosecuting agency and they are stated to have made voluntary statements, which, however, the accused dispute as the outcome of threat and coercion.

(3.) ALL the three accused filed separate applications for bail before the Principal Sessions Judge, Madras. By orders passed on 19-4-1989 the learned Sessions Judge dismissed bail applications of two of the accused (Petitioners in Crl.M.P.Nos.5143 and 5144 of 1989) observing that they can renew their applications if a complaint was not instituted by 5-5-1989. As far as the third accused (Petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.5080 of 1989) was concerned, the court of Sessions directed her release on bail on condition that she deposited in Cash Rs.5,000 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.II), Madras apart from executing a bond for a like sum with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the same magistrate. A further condition was attached that both the sureties must be Indian Citizens and must possess immovable property in this country. It was also specified that one such surety must be Thirumathi Lakshmi, whom the said accused claimed to be known to her. A final direction was made that the petitioner must appear before the respondent Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras, every day at 10 a.m. until further orders. It is this order of the Court of Sessions, Madras, which is sought to beset aside in Crl.M.P.No.5245 of 1989.