Gold smuggling case: Kerala High Court dismisses M Sivasankar's bail plea

The ED had informed the court that Sivasankar, was a “conspirator” and key accused while Swapna Suresh, the key accused was only a “pawn”.

Published: 28th October 2020 11:49 AM  |   Last Updated: 28th October 2020 03:38 PM   |  A+A-

Kerala High Court

Kerala High Court (File Photo| A Sanesh,EPS)

By Express News Service

KOCHI: Kerala High Court on Wednesday dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by former Principal Secretary to the Kerala Chief Minister M Sivasankar, in connection with the cases registered by the Customs and the Enforcement Directorate. Shortly after the court rejected his bail plea, the Enforcement Directorate probing the diplomatic channel gold smuggling case took Sivasankar into custody. 

Justice Ashok Menon issued the order after examining the materials produced by Enforcement Directorate and Customs against Sivasankar. 

ALSO READ | Former IT Secretary M Sivasankar taken into ED custody

The ED had informed the court that Sivasankar, was a “conspirator” and key accused while Swapna Suresh, the key accused was only a “pawn”. The central agency told the court that Sivasankar had contacted the customs officers at the Thiruvananthapuram airport multiple times requesting to release the baggage addressed to the UAE consulate in Thiruvananthapuram through the diplomatic channel without any scrutiny or interference.

The agency said the “highly influential” bureaucrat was one of the conspirators behind the gold smuggling. The ED stated that it had reasons to believe that Swapna was only a pawn and Sivasankar was the main beneficiary of the proceeds of the crime. The investigation is going on in this regard and it is necessary to question Sivasankar in custody, the ED said and added that he is not cooperating with the investigation and misleading the agency. 

ALSO READ | Congress seeks CM Pinarayi Vijayan's resignation after M Sivasankar taken into ED custody 

According to the Customs, the bail application was not maintainable. It is mandatory that under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that 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 is not anywhere stated in the application that the petitioner has been charged with non-bailable offences. This cannot be left to a 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, 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