Signing you in

“Gold smuggling is not merely an act of clandestinely carrying a precious metal from one geographical boundary to another. If allowed to proliferate through organised networks, it carries ramifications for the economic interests of the nation,” Justice M Nagaprasanna said in his order on August 28.

“If the allegation is of an organised chain in which one person carries the contraband into the aircraft, another conceals it, another retrieves it, yet another transports it beyond the restricted area and somebody else ultimately receives it, insistence upon recovery from the hands of every link in that chain would, at this stage, defeat the very inquiry intended to discover how the chain operates,” the judge added.

Nandeesha was arrested in June 2025 after the gold recovery and later released on bail.

The customs department alleged that two gold bars of 1 kg each were smuggled on a Saudi Airlines flight from Jeddah to Bengaluru. The passenger in seat No 39A disembarked after concealing the contraband in a grey packet beneath the seat. Cleaning staff retrieved the packet, camouflaged it among garbage or cleaning material, and carried it beyond the aircraft and the tarmac area. The contraband was then deposited at a location from where another hand in the chain would take over. Nandeesha is alleged to have cleaned the aircraft and smuggled the contraband outside the airport.

“Whether the petitioner is the beginning of the chain, its middle, or merely one link in a larger syndicate is precisely what the investigation is required to unearth,” said advocate Madhu N Rao, appearing for the customs department.

Rao said that only a showcause notice was issued to Nandeesha and that the investigation is at a nascent stage. He added that the department and the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence were trying to unearth the entire modus operandi.

The court said a showcause notice calls for an answer and does not pronounce guilt and that Nandeesha can demonstrate he had no role in the alleged gold smuggling. “To interdict the proceedings even before such an exercise is undertaken would amount to strangulating the statutory process at its inception,” it added.

The court, however, said that Nandeesha’s culpability is yet to be determined.

“The Customs Department allegedly portrays a larger and coordinated modus operandi. Whether an innocent cabin cleaner was unwittingly caught in the episode, as he contends, or a conscious participant acting for monetary consideration, as alleged by the department, is precisely the matter that requires adjudication on the material that may emerge,” the order read.