E-Paper
SC refuses to set aside bail given to 12 accused in gold smuggling case
The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to set aside the bail granted to 12 accused in the Kerala gold smuggling case but agreed to examine whether smuggling of gold amounts to a terrorist act under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967
The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to set aside the bail granted to 12 accused in the Kerala gold smuggling case but agreed to examine whether smuggling of gold amounts to a terrorist act under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967.
The Union of India represented through the National Investigation Agency (NIA) had challenged a February 18, 2021 order of the Kerala High Court which released the 12 accused on bail while holding that “gold smuggling with a mere illegal profit motive” could not fall within the definition of a terrorist act as defined under Section 15(1)(a)(iiia) of the UA(P) Act .
The above section of the 1967 act defines smuggling of high-quality counterfeit Indian paper currency, coin or of any other material with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the economic security of the country as a “terrorist act”, which is not bailable.
The Kerala high court held that the expression “any other material” will not include gold. At the same time, the high court allowed NIA to seek cancellation of bail if it succeeds in digging out material to show complicity of the accused in a terrorist act.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana issued notice on Centre’s appeal stating that the only question to be considered is the question of law arising out of the HC order. The bench was not inclined to interfere with the bail granted to the 12 accused.
Additional solicitor general (ASG) KM Nataraj appearing for NIA submitted that the Kerala HC’s conclusion that smuggling of gold does not amount to terrorist act will seriously impact pending cases probed by NIA and other central agencies.
He pointed out a judgment given on February 1 this year by the Rajasthan high court which upheld charges under UA(P) Act against a man caught for smuggling more than 18 kilograms of gold. This order was later challenged by the accused before the Supreme Court and is still pending consideration.
