SUJIT TIWARI vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT

Case Type: Criminal Appeal

Date of Judgment: 28-01-2020

Preview image for SUJIT TIWARI vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT

Full Judgment Text

NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1897 OF 2019 (@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 3478 OF 2019)
SUJIT TIWARI…APPELLANT(S)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.…RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T Deepak Gupta, J.
1.This bail application has been filed by one of the accused
and we are giving the facts necessary only for the decision of his case. 1
2.The Indian Coast Guard received some intelligence inputs
with   regard   to   suspicious   activities   of   a   ship   MV   Hennry. Therefore,   the   Indian   Coast   Guard   took   their   own   ship   and intercepted the vessel on 29.07.2017.  The intercepted vessel MV Hennry was flying a flag of Panama.  The Master of the ship was one Suprit Tiwari, and there were 7 other crew members, all Indian nationals. The Master and the crew members were not in possession of any licence, permit and could not even produce any document pertaining to departure from last port of call i.e. Abu Dhabi in U.A.E. or for the next port of call, i.e., Bhavnagar in Gujarat.     It   is   alleged   that   the   Master   Suprit   Tiwari   when questioned   admitted   that   they   were   carrying   contraband substance in the nature of narcotics in the ship.   He identified the locations and approximately 1445 kg of narcotics substance in 1526 packets was recovered.  This was hidden in two cavities modified in the two tanks on both sides at stern of the vessel and also in the bollards and railings on both sides of the weather deck.     These   cavities   and   railings   had   been   fabricated   for concealing narcotics which were stored in water proof packets.
3.Information in this regard was given to the Narcotics
Control Bureau, Ahmedabad (for short ‘NCB’).  The NCB carried 2 out investigation and after completing some investigation, filed a complaint before the Special Judge, NDPS Court at Porbandar in Gujarat   on   22.12.2017   against   the   Master   and   the   7   crew members   and   5   other   persons   including   the   appellant   Sujit Tiwari, who is the brother of the Master of the ship Suprit Tiwari. In   the   complaint   it   is   mentioned   that   after   the   Indian   Coast Guard informed the NCB, a team of NCB went to Porbandar and once the ship MV Hennry came to the jetty on 31.07.2017, the same  was   boarded   by   the   officials   of   the   NCB,   including   the Intelligence Officer.  Information was collected by the officials of the Indian Coast Guard and the Intelligence Officer opened one of the packets and found that it contained a substance which was a light brownish powder which on testing gave positive result for heroin.  Thereafter, all the 8 persons i.e., Master and crew of the ship were detained and the contraband substance was off­loaded from   the   vessel   and   taken   to   the   premises   of   the   police authorities.     Thereafter,   the   narcotic   substance   was   weighed, samples were taken and further investigation was done.
4.According to Suprit Tiwari he was working for an Iranian
National Sayed Ali Moniri (Seyed Mahmoud) and it was Sayed Ali Moniri who purchased the heroin and got the cavities made in 3 the  ship.     He   offered   huge   amounts   to   the   Master   and   crew members to illegally transport the heroin.   Two crew members who did not accept the offer left the ship.
5.According to Suprit Tiwari, 4 Iranians namely Ebrahim,
Mustafa, Mohammad and Rasool accompanied them on the ship and they started for Sharjah and reached Dubai the next day. About 1500 kg of heroin was loaded on the ship in Gwadar Port, Pakistan and 1 Pakistani National named Khalid Mohammad also joined   the   accused   here.     However,   instead   of   going   towards Egypt, as directed by their boss, Suprit Tiwari and crew members decided to bring the ship to India and changed the name of their vessel from   Prince­II   to  MV  Hennry.     Suprit  Tiwari  and   crew members after landing in India decided to sell all the drugs and get the ship dismantled as soon as the drugs got delivered to Vishal Kumar Yadav and Irfan Sheikh who assured them to buy the entire consignment.  According to Suprit Tiwari, all the non­ Indian   crew   members,   i.e.   four   Iranians   and   one   Pakistani national deboarded the ship after concealment of drugs.  
6.The Master and crew members destroyed the Automatic
Identification System (AIS) of the ship so that it could not be traced   by   the   owner   or   any   other   person.     In   his   voluntary 4 statement,   Suprit   Tiwari   revealed   that   he   had   informed   his brother Sujit Tiwari about some illegal activity in which he was to make a huge amount of money and he also told Sujit that he would get Rs. 50 crores through hawala.   The appellant Sujit Tiwari was arrested on 04.08.2017.   The allegation against the appellant is that he was part of the conspiracy to smuggle the huge quantity of contraband into India and therefore he should not be granted bail.
7.Mr. Siddharth Dave, learned senior counsel for the
appellant urges that there is no material to connect the appellant with the crime.  He has also argued that the appellant is entitled to a default bail since the investigation has not been completed within the period prescribed under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘CrPC’) read with Section 36A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’).
8.On the other hand, Mr. K.M. Natraj, learned ASG appearing
for   the   respondents   submits   that   keeping   in   view   the   bar   of Section   37   of   the   NDPS   Act,   no   bail   can   be   granted   to   the appellant.   As far as default bail is concerned he submits that 5 since the complaint was filed within time, the appellant cannot get benefit of Section 167 CrPC read with Section 36A of the NDPS Act even if investigation has not been completed.   While deciding this bail application we are conscious of the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act which lays down two limitations; one, that the court is prima facie of the view that the appellant is not guilty of the offence and secondly, that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
9.We have gone through the statement made by the appellant
under   Section   67   of   the   NDPS   Act.     Without   going   into   the question   whether   the   statement   is   admissible   or   not,   as   this matter   has   been   referred   to   a   larger   bench,   we   are,   for   the purpose   of   this   case,   taking   the   statement   into   consideration even though the appellant has resiled from the same.
10.The prosecution story is that the appellant was aware of
what his brother was doing and was actively helping his brother. At this stage we would not like to comment on the merits of the allegations levelled against the present appellant.  But other than
the fewWhatsAppmessages and his own statement which he has
resiled from, there is very little other evidence.   At this stage it appears that the appellant may not have even been aware of the 6 entire conspiracy because even the prosecution story is that the brother himself did not know what was loaded on the ship till he was informed by the owner of the vessel.  Even when the heroin was loaded in the ship it was supposed to go towards Egypt and that would not have been a crime under the NDPS Act.  It seems that Suprit Tiwari and other 7 crew members then decided to make much more money by bringing the ship to India with the intention of disposing of the drugs in India.  During this period the Master Suprit Tiwari took the help of Vishal Kumar Yadav and Irfan Sheikh who had to deliver the consignment to Suleman who had to arrange the money after delivery.  The main allegation made against the appellant is that he sent the list of the crew members after deleting the names of 4 Iranians and Esthekhar Alam   to   Vishal   Kumar   Yadav   and   Irfan   Sheikh   through
WhatsAppwith a view to make their disembarkation process
easier.  Even if we take the prosecution case at the highest, the appellant   was   aware   that   his   brother   was   indulging   in   some illegal activity because obviously such huge amount of money could not be made otherwise.  However, at this stage it cannot be said with certainty whether he was aware that drugs were being smuggled on the ship or not, though the allegation is that he 7 made such a statement to the NCB under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.  
11.At this stage, without going into the merits, we feel that the
case of the appellant herein is totally different from the other accused.     Reasonable   possibility   is   there   that   he   may   be acquitted.     He   has   been   behind   bars   since   his   arrest   on 04.08.2017 i.e. for more than 2 years and he is a young man aged about 25 years.  He is a B.Tech Graduate.  Therefore, under facts and circumstances of this case we feel that this is a fit case where   the   appellant   is   entitled   to   bail   because   there   is   a possibility that he was unaware of the illegal activities of his brother and the other crew members.  The case of the appellant is different from that of all the other accused, whether it be the Master   of   the   ship,   the   crew   members   or   the   persons   who introduced   the   Master   to   the   prospective   buyers   and   the prospective buyers.
12.We, however, feel that some stringent conditions will have to
be imposed upon the appellant.  
13.We direct that the appellant Sujit Tiwari be released on bail
upon furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/­ (Ten Lakhs   only),   with   two   sureties   of   the   like   amount   to   the 8 satisfaction of the Special Judge, NDPS Court at Porbandar on the following conditions:­
(a)The appellant shall deposit his passport, if any
with the Court.  
(b)The appellant shall either stay in Porbandar or
Kolkata.  He shall not go to any other place.  
(c)The appellant shall give his cell­phone number to
the police authorities and shall not change his cell­phone number without permission of the trial court.  
(d)Whether the appellant remains in Porbandar or
Kolkata, in Kolkata he shall report to the Entally police station daily at 09:00 A.M. , and in Porbandar he shall report to the Investigating Officer of the NCB at 09:00 A.M. everyday.
(e)The appellant shall join the investigation as and
when called upon to do so before the authorities of the NCB.  
(f)The appellant shall not in any manner hamper or
try to interfere in the investigation.
(g)Once the trial begins, the appellant shall not in
any manner try to delay the trial.  
14.If the appellant violates any of these terms, the NCB shall be
entitled   to   straightaway   apply   to   the   Special   Judge   for cancellation of his bail.  9
15.The appeal is disposed of on the aforesaid terms. Pending
application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
……………………………….J.
(L. Nageswara Rao)
………………………………..J.
(Deepak Gupta)
New Delhi
January 28, 2020
10