Kerala HC Refuses to Discharge Customs Officer In CBI Bribery Case

The Kerala High Court has refused to discharge a customs official accused in a corruption case investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), holding that the materials on record disclose a prima facie case of bribery and criminal conspiracy requiring a full trial. The bench of Justice A. Badharudeen has observed that statements of multiple accused persons referring to the payment of bribes and the role of the petitioner were already part of the prosecution records. These materials, the Court held, were sufficient to proceed to trial. The case arises from a CBI investigation into an alleged bribery network involving customs officials and passengers arriving from abroad. According to the prosecution, several accused persons were part of a scheme to allow passengers to clear gold ornaments and other items through customs without paying the required penalties in exchange for illegal gratification. The prosecution alleges that customs officials stationed at the airport demanded and accepted bribes from passengers carrying undeclared gold ornaments. These acts were allegedly committed in collusion with other accused persons who facilitated the payments and clearance of the goods. The offences invoked include provisions under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) and the Indian Penal Code. The CBI alleged that the revision petitioner, a customs official, accepted bribes from passengers to allow them to pass through customs without the imposition of statutory penalties. According to the charge sheet the accused allegedly received ₹30,000 from a passenger (Accused No. 26) to permit clearance of gold ornaments without penalty. He was also accused of accepting ₹40,000 from another passenger (Accused No. 27) for a similar favour. Statements of several co-accused were recorded during the investigation, which allegedly referred to payments made to the officer in question. The accused officer filed a discharge petition before the Special Court, arguing that there was no direct evidence proving receipt of illegal gratification. CCTV footage relied upon by the prosecution did not show any exchange of bribe money. Statements of co-accused alone were insufficient to frame charges. The investigation itself acknowledged that no contraband items were recovered from certain passengers. However, the Special Court dismissed the discharge plea, concluding that the prosecution materials were sufficient to frame charges and proceed with the trial. Challenging the dismissal, the accused approached the High Court through a criminal revision petition under provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The High Court upheld the Special Court’s decision and emphasized the limited scope of judicial scrutiny at the stage of discharge. The Court observed that at this preliminary stage: the court cannot conduct a detailed evaluation of evidence. The only question is whether the materials reveal a prima facie case or a strong suspicion warranting trial. The Court also clarified that the defence arguments regarding absence of CCTV evidence or recovery of contraband involve matters of evidence that can be tested during trial, not at the discharge stage. Finding that the Special Court had correctly assessed the available materials, the High Court held that no illegality or irregularity existed in the order rejecting the discharge petition. The court dismissed the criminal revision petition allowing the trial against the accused officer and other co-accused to proceed before the Special Court. Case Details Case Title: Yaser Arafat.K Versus CBI Citation: JURISHOUR-314-HC-2026(Ker) Case No.: CRL.REV.PET NO. 162 OF 2026 Date: 25/02/2026 Counsel For Petitioner: P.A.Mohammed Shah Counsel For Respondent: Adv Shri.Sreelal N.Warrier Click Here To Read Order Read More: Artificial Nutrition, Hydration Can Be Withdrawn as Medical Treatment in Passive Euthanasia Cases: Supreme Court

Kerala HC Refuses to Discharge Customs Officer In CBI Bribery Case

Membership Required

Latest articles

Delayed FIR Weakens Prosecution at Bail Stage, Bombay Court Grants Bail in Rs. 1.25 Crore Jewellery Dispute

Services Used for Setting Up Factory Continue to Qualify as ‘Input Services’: CESTAT

Customs Can’t Enhance Import Value Solely on NIDB Data Without Proof of Comparable Imports: CESTAT

Bona Fide Mistakes Shouldn’t Defeat Substantive Tax Rights: Karnataka High Court Allows Correction of GST DRC-03 Filing Error

More like this

Delayed FIR Weakens Prosecution at Bail Stage, Bombay Court Grants Bail in Rs. 1.25 Crore Jewellery Dispute

Services Used for Setting Up Factory Continue to Qualify as ‘Input Services’: CESTAT

Customs Can’t Enhance Import Value Solely on NIDB Data Without Proof of Comparable Imports: CESTAT

About us

Company

Categories