Supreme Court Grants Bail in NDPS Case: Sujit Tiwari vs. State of Gujarat (2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 28 January 2020
Citation: 2020 INSC 65
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and Deepak Gupta, J.
Can an individual be granted bail when accused of a serious drug offense, especially when their involvement seems peripheral? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a massive seizure of narcotics. This judgment explores the circumstances under which bail can be granted under the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act, even when the accused is potentially linked to a larger criminal conspiracy. The bench comprised Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Deepak Gupta, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Deepak Gupta.

Case Background

The case revolves around the interception of a ship, MV Hennry, by the Indian Coast Guard on 29th July 2017. The ship, flying a Panama flag, was found to be carrying approximately 1445 kg of narcotics hidden in modified cavities within the vessel. The master of the ship, Suprit Tiwari, along with seven other Indian crew members, were detained. Suprit Tiwari admitted during questioning that the ship was carrying contraband. The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) was informed, and they initiated an investigation. A complaint was filed on 22nd December 2017, against the master, the crew, and five other individuals, including the appellant, Sujit Tiwari, who is the brother of the master. Suprit Tiwari stated that an Iranian national, Sayed Ali Moniri, was the mastermind behind the operation and had loaded the heroin onto the ship in Gwadar Port, Pakistan. The ship was initially supposed to head towards Egypt, but the crew decided to bring it to India to sell the drugs. Sujit Tiwari was arrested on 4th August 2017, for allegedly being part of the conspiracy. The prosecution’s case against Sujit Tiwari rests on the claim that he was aware of his brother’s illegal activities and actively assisted him by providing a list of the crew members to facilitate their disembarkation.

Timeline

Arguments

The appellant, Sujit Tiwari, argued for bail, contending that there was no concrete evidence linking him to the crime. He further claimed entitlement to default bail because the investigation was not completed within the statutory period under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), read with Section 36A of the NDPS Act. The respondent, the State of Gujarat, opposed the bail application, citing the stringent bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which requires the court to be prima facie satisfied that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offense while on bail. The State also argued that since the complaint was filed within the stipulated time, the appellant could not claim default bail, even if the investigation was incomplete.

Appellant’s Submissions:

• ✓ There is no material to connect the appellant with the crime.
• ✓ The appellant is entitled to default bail since the investigation was not completed within the prescribed period under Section 167 of the CrPC read with Section 36A of the NDPS Act.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• ✓ Section 37 of the NDPS Act bars the grant of bail to the appellant.
• ✓ The appellant is not entitled to default bail as the complaint was filed within the stipulated time, even if the investigation is incomplete.

Submissions Table

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:

• Whether the appellant, Sujit Tiwari, should be granted bail considering the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the available evidence.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The judgment refers to the following legal provisions:

• ✓ Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section deals with the procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours.
• ✓ Section 36A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act): This section specifies the modified application of the CrPC to offenses under the NDPS Act.
• ✓ Section 37 of the NDPS Act: This section imposes limitations on the grant of bail in cases involving offenses under the NDPS Act.
• ✓ Section 67 of the NDPS Act: This section pertains to the power of officers to call for information, etc.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• ✓ The Court considered Section 37 of the NDPS Act and acknowledged the stringent conditions for bail, but stated that the case of the appellant was different from the other accused.
• ✓ The Court considered Section 67 of the NDPS Act and took the statement of the appellant into consideration, even though the appellant had resiled from it.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• ✓ The lack of substantial evidence directly linking Sujit Tiwari to the drug smuggling operation.
• ✓ The possibility that Sujit Tiwari was unaware of the specific nature of his brother’s illegal activities.
• ✓ The fact that Sujit Tiwari had already spent a significant time in jail (over two years).
• ✓ Sujit Tiwari’s young age and educational background.

The Court emphasized that the case of the appellant was different from the other accused, warranting a different approach in the bail decision.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court gave more weight to the factual aspects of the case, such as the lack of direct evidence and the possibility of the appellant’s innocence, than to the strict legal provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court reasoned that while the allegations against the appellant were serious, the evidence was not strong enough to deny bail, especially considering the possibility of his innocence and his prolonged incarceration. The court also took into consideration the fact that the appellant was a young and educated individual.

The court considered the argument that the appellant was aware of his brother’s illegal activities but noted that it was not certain whether he knew about the drug smuggling. The court also considered the fact that the appellant had been in jail for more than two years. Based on these factors, the court decided to grant bail to the appellant.

“At this stage it appears that the appellant may not have even been aware of the 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 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…”

“Reasonable possibility is there that he may be acquitted.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Bail can be granted under the NDPS Act if there is a reasonable possibility that the accused is not guilty of the offense.
• ✓ The court can consider the length of incarceration and the personal circumstances of the accused while deciding on bail.
• ✓ The court may impose stringent conditions on bail to ensure the accused does not abscond or interfere with the investigation.
• ✓ The case highlights that each accused’s case must be examined individually, even in cases of conspiracy.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant, Sujit Tiwari, be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,00,000 with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the following conditions:

1. (a) The appellant shall deposit his passport, if any, with the Court.
2. (b) The appellant shall either stay in Porbandar or Kolkata and shall not go to any other place.
3. (c) The appellant shall give his cell phone number to the police authorities and shall not change his cell phone number without permission of the trial court.
4. (d) The appellant shall report daily at 09:00 AM to the Entally police station if in Kolkata, or to the Investigating Officer of the NCB if in Porbandar.
5. (e) The appellant shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the NCB.
6. (f) The appellant shall not in any manner hamper or try to interfere in the investigation.
7. (g) Once the trial begins, the appellant shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.

The Court also stated that if the appellant violates any of these terms, the NCB shall be entitled to apply to the Special Judge for cancellation of his bail.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There are no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that even under the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail can be granted if the court finds a reasonable possibility that the accused is not guilty of the offense and the case of the accused is different from the other accused. This judgment emphasizes that each case must be examined individually, based on its unique facts and circumstances, even in cases involving conspiracy. The court also considered the length of incarceration and the personal circumstances of the accused while deciding on bail.

Conclusion

In the case of Sujit Tiwari vs. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court granted bail to the appellant, Sujit Tiwari, who was accused of being part of a drug smuggling conspiracy. The Court found that the evidence against him was minimal, and there was a reasonable possibility that he might be acquitted. The Court also considered the fact that he had been in custody for over two years and was a young, educated individual. This judgment highlights that while Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for bail, the courts must still consider the individual circumstances of each case and the possibility of innocence. The court also imposed stringent conditions on the bail to ensure the accused does not abscond or interfere with the investigation.