Sivasankar feigned illness to avoid interrogation, Customs tells Kerala High Court

The Customs is opposing the anticipatory bail plea of Sivasankar in the gold smuggling case. The court will consider the case on October 23.

Published: 20th October 2020 04:05 PM  |   Last Updated: 20th October 2020 04:05 PM   |  A+A-

Former Principal Secretary M Sivasankar

Former Principal Secretary M Sivasankar. (File photo| EPS)

By Express News Service

KOCHI: Former principal secretary to the Chief Minister M Sivasankar, who is involved in an economic offence case, feigned illness and got himself admitted to the hospital where his wife works to avoid interrogation, the Customs informed the Kerala High Court on Tuesday.

In its statement filed opposing the anticipatory bail plea of Sivasankar in the gold smuggling case, the Customs submitted that he had executed a 'vakalath' on October 14 before he left Kochi after interrogation. The court will consider the case on October 23.

According to the investigation agency, Sivasankar did not mention the place while signing the 'vakalath', which shows that he had made arrangements to get himself admitted to the hospital where his wife works, so that he can avoid further questioning.

"The illness turned out to be fake in view of the medical opinion that painkillers will take care of the back pain. Yet it is surprising he accuses the Customs of choosing Friday evening. A person who is clearly avoiding the reach of the law and made all preparation to defeat questioning is not entitled to approach the court," submitted the Customs.

According to the Customs, the bail application is not maintainable in law. It is mandatory that under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a person seeking the discretionary powers of the court should satisfy in the application for pre-arrest bail that he is charged with non-bailable offences and that he apprehends arrest for that offences. Both these statements were significantly absent in the application.

It was not anywhere stated in the application that the petitioner was charged with any non-bailable offences. This cannot be left to matter of inference but has to be stated specifically. Hence, the petition is not sustainable. The petitioner has not even disclosed to the court what offences are charged against him in the O.R. No. 7 of 2020 in which he has moved the application for bail, submitted the Customs.


Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp