P.L.Nagarajan v. The Senior Intelligence Officer,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.27458 of 2025 P.L.Nagarajan ... Petitioner Vs.
The Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai Zonal Unit, 27, G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.
... Respondent (R.R.No.20 of 2025) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest pending investigation in R.R.No.20 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioner :
Mr.Dinesh For Respondent :
Mr.P.Vishnu Special Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Section 135 and 104(6) of Customs Act, 1962 in R.R.No.20 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. 1/4
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that based on a specific intelligence Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai Zonal Unit (DRICZU for short) intercepted one person viz., Shri.Arun Raj (accused), near Hot Chips Restaurant, Thiru Narayana Guru Road, Periyamedu, Purasaiwakkam, Chennai. While he was attempting to smuggle foreign origin gold of 5 nos of 24 carat gold chains weighing 751.94 grams and 1 no. of 22 carat gold bar weighing 423.30 grams totally weighing 1175.24 grams worth Rs.1,15,53,368/- into India received from passengers travelling from Malaysia to Trichy International Airport and carried it to Chennai. Hence the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ranked as A2 and based on the confession given by the arrested accused he has been falsely implicated in this case and already he has been served with summons for appearance before the respondent police and he also appeared before the respondent police and further submitted that he is ready to cooperate for investigation. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
2/4
4. Mr.P.Vishnu, learned Special Public Prosecutor, submitted that the arrested person has given statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act stated that this petitioner is a person, who paid money through Google pay to A1 and on his instructions he has to deliver the same to the petitioner herein and investigation further revealed that the petitioner is a habitual offender involved in smuggling. He further submitted that investigation in this case is at preliminary stage, if granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, he would hamper the investigation. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. I have considered the submissions made on both sides and also perused the records.
6. The investigation revealed that the petitioner is the main person, who paid money through Google pay to A1 and screen shot and other related materials have also been recovered by the respondent in this regard, if the petitioner released on anticipatory bail, he would hamper further investigation.
3/4
K.RAJASEKAR , J.
ssi
7. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, taking note of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), and considering the fact that huge quantity of goods has been recovered from A1 and the petitioner is the main person involved in smuggling, granting anticipatory bail he would hamper the investigation, hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 22.10.2025 ssi To:
1.The Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai Zonal Unit, 27, G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. Crl.O.P.No.27458 of 2025 4/4