Supreme Court Denies Bail in Narcotics Smuggling Case: Ramjhan Gani Palani vs. National Investigating Agency (27 April 2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 27 April 2022
Citation: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 8942 of 2021
Judges: N.V. Ramana, CJI, Krishna Murari, J., Hima Kohli, J. (Majority Opinion by Hima Kohli, J.)

Can a person be denied bail based on circumstantial evidence linking them to a drug smuggling operation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving the seizure of a large quantity of heroin off the coast of Gujarat. The court considered whether the accused’s presence near the scene of the crime, coupled with his unusual communication with a Pakistani vessel, was sufficient to deny bail. The bench, comprising Chief Justice N.V. Ramana and Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Hima Kohli, ultimately dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal against the order of the Gujarat High Court, which had denied bail to the petitioner.

Case Background

The case began with the interception of a Pakistani boat by the Indian Coast Guard and the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) on May 21, 2019, in Indian territorial waters. The Pakistani boat was found to be carrying a large quantity of heroin. The captain of the Pakistani boat admitted to dumping some bags into the sea, which were later retrieved, containing 217.856 Kgs of heroin. Subsequently, 17 more packets of heroin weighing 18.766 Kgs were recovered from the coastal area, bringing the total seized quantity to 236.622 Kgs. The investigation revealed that the narcotics were being smuggled from Pakistan to Gujarat via the sea route. During interrogation, the Pakistani captain stated that he was to communicate with an Indian counterpart using the call sign “Mohammed,” to which the Indian counterpart was to respond with “Ramzan,” on VHF Channel No. 8.

On May 21, 2019, Indian Coast Guard officers, using a hit-and-trial method, called out “Mohammed-Ramzan-Ramzan” on VHF Channel No. 16. The petitioner, Ramjhan Gani Palani, on board an Indian fishing boat nearby, responded with “Ramzan-haan bolo” on VHF Channel No. 8. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner’s boat was the only Indian fishing vessel in the immediate vicinity and that the boat had been at sea for 4-5 days, catching only five fish. The crew also appeared unusually neat and clean, raising suspicion. The petitioner was detained on the belief that he was the intended recipient of the drug consignment.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Special Judge, National Investigating Agency (NIA), Ahmedabad, rejected the petitioner’s bail application on March 19, 2021. The petitioner appealed this decision, but the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat dismissed the appeal on August 19, 2021, stating that there was a prima facie case against him, indicating his involvement in the offense. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition.

Legal Framework

The case involves multiple sections of various statutes. The petitioner is charged under Sections 120-B, 121-A & 122 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deal with criminal conspiracy, conspiracy to wage war against the Government of India, and collecting arms with the intention of waging war against the Government of India, respectively. Additionally, the petitioner is charged under Sections 17, 18, 18-B, and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, which relate to raising funds for terrorist acts, conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, recruiting individuals for terrorist acts, and being a member of a terrorist group, respectively. Furthermore, the petitioner is charged under Sections 2, 8, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 29, and 32 (B) (e) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), which pertain to various aspects of drug trafficking and related offenses.

Specifically, the court notes that the petitioner was charged with offences punishable under Sections 28, 29, and 30 of the NDPS Act. These sections deal with punishment for contravention in relation to opium poppy and opium, punishment for offences and abetment, and preparation and attempt to commit offences, respectively. The punishment prescribed for these offences is imprisonment for a minimum of ten years, which can extend up to twenty years.

Arguments

Arguments by the Petitioner:

• The petitioner argued that the prosecution’s case was based purely on suspicion and that he was a victim of being at the wrong place at the wrong time.
• The petitioner emphasized that he was the only one arrested from the twelve crew members on his boat, suggesting that the others were not involved in any wrongdoing.
• The petitioner stated that he has a clean criminal record and is unlikely to commit any crime if granted bail.
• The petitioner contended that his response “Ramzan haan bolo” on VHF Channel 8 was a mere coincidence, given that his name was Ramjhan, and should not be seen as evidence of involvement in the crime.
• The petitioner presented an invoice for the sale of seven fish, including five “Ghol fish” (considered a rare and expensive catch), to show that he was genuinely fishing and not waiting to receive a drug consignment. He argued that the high value of the Ghol fish demonstrated that he was not involved in illegal activities.
• The petitioner argued that the fact that his boat and crew were neat and clean was not sufficient grounds to deny him bail.

Arguments by the Respondent (National Investigating Agency):

• The respondent argued that the petitioner was arrested two days after the arrest of the six Pakistani nationals found on the Pakistani boat, indicating a connection.
• The respondent stated that a complaint was registered under the NDPS Act against the petitioner and others, and that the case was later transferred to the NIA.
• The respondent emphasized that the petitioner was charged with serious offenses related to drug smuggling, including offenses punishable under Sections 28, 29 and 30 of the NDPS Act.
• The respondent argued that the case was not a routine matter but involved organized smuggling of narcotics intended for sale in India and for generating funds for terrorist activities.
• The respondent pointed out that nine Pakistani nationals were still absconding, and their role was still under investigation.
• The respondent argued that the charges had been framed against the petitioner and the six Pakistani nationals, further solidifying the case against them.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in the judgment. However, the core issue before the court was:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in denying bail to the petitioner based on the evidence presented by the prosecution.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. However, the court considered the following legal provisions:

• Sections 120-B, 121-A & 122 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): These sections deal with criminal conspiracy, conspiracy to wage war against the Government of India, and collecting arms with the intention of waging war against the Government of India, respectively.
• Sections 17, 18, 18-B, 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act: These sections relate to raising funds for terrorist acts, conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, recruiting individuals for terrorist acts, and being a member of a terrorist group, respectively.
• Sections 2, 8, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 29 and 32 (B) (e) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act): These sections pertain to various aspects of drug trafficking and related offenses.
• Sections 28, 29, and 30 of the NDPS Act: These sections deal with punishment for contravention in relation to opium poppy and opium, punishment for offences and abetment, and preparation and attempt to commit offences, respectively.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The court considered the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) to understand the nature of the offenses that the petitioner was charged with. The court noted that the charges under the NDPS Act, specifically Sections 28, 29, and 30, carried a minimum punishment of ten years, which could extend to twenty years, indicating the seriousness of the offenses.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to deny bail was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The petitioner’s response to the call sign “Mohammed” with “Ramzan” on VHF Channel No. 8, which was considered a significant piece of circumstantial evidence.
• The petitioner’s presence in the immediate vicinity of the Pakistani boat at the time of the interception.
• The unusual circumstances surrounding the petitioner’s fishing trip, including the small catch and the neat appearance of the boat and crew.
• The serious nature of the charges against the petitioner, which included offenses related to drug smuggling and potential links to terrorist activities.
• The fact that the investigation was still pending and nine Pakistani nationals were absconding.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on the factual circumstances of the case, such as the petitioner’s unusual response on the radio, his location, and the suspicious nature of his fishing trip. While the court considered the legal provisions and the seriousness of the charges, the facts played a more significant role in its decision to deny bail.

The Supreme Court reasoned that while the petitioner’s explanations and defenses would be considered during the trial, the circumstantial evidence at this stage was sufficient to deny bail. The court emphasized that the case was not a routine matter but involved serious charges related to drug smuggling and potential terror links, which warranted denying the discretionary relief of bail.

The court did not explicitly discuss any alternative interpretations or arguments that were considered and rejected. However, the court acknowledged the petitioner’s arguments about being at the wrong place at the wrong time and the value of the Ghol fish, but deemed these arguments to be insufficient to outweigh the circumstantial evidence against him at the stage of considering bail.

The court’s decision was clear: “We are, therefore, not inclined to exercise our discretion in favour of the petitioner by interfering with the impugned order, at present.” The court also clarified that its observations were limited to examining the prayer for regular bail and should not be treated as an observation on the merits of the case. The court also stated, “But at the threshold, this appears to be a case where the petitioner has been fishing in troubled waters and as per the respondent No.1/NIA, has got caught in his own net.” and “Much is sought to be made of the five Ghol fish netted by the petitioner and his crew members over five days of remaining on the high seas by referring to the high market value of the prize catch.”

There were no minority opinions in this judgment, as the bench unanimously agreed to dismiss the petition for special leave to appeal.

Key Takeaways

• Circumstantial evidence, such as unusual communication and presence near the scene of a crime, can be sufficient to deny bail in serious cases.
• The seriousness of the charges, especially those involving drug smuggling and potential links to terrorism, can weigh heavily against granting bail.
• The court may consider the factual circumstances and the nature of the charges when deciding on bail applications.
• The court’s observations at the bail stage are limited to the bail application and do not affect the merits of the case during the trial.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this order. The court’s decision was limited to dismissing the petition for special leave to appeal, thereby upholding the High Court’s decision to deny bail.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases involving serious offenses like drug smuggling, circumstantial evidence, such as unusual communication and presence near the scene of the crime, can be sufficient grounds to deny bail. This case reinforces the principle that the court will consider the seriousness of the charges and the potential for a long sentence when deciding on bail applications. There is no change in the previous positions of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal, upholding the Gujarat High Court’s decision to deny bail to the petitioner, Ramjhan Gani Palani. The court found sufficient circumstantial evidence, including the petitioner’s response on VHF Channel No. 8 and his presence near the Pakistani boat, to justify denying bail at this stage. The court emphasized the serious nature of the charges and the ongoing investigation. The court also clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and would not affect the merits of the case during the trial.