In the case of State of India vs. Sujit Tiwari, the Supreme Court has granted bail to the petitioner, Sujit Tiwari, under stringent conditions. The judgment highlighted the complexities of the case involving alleged smuggling activities aboard MV Hennry. The court imposed strict guidelines for Tiwari’s bail, considering the unique circumstances of the case. Stay tuned for more updates on this significant legal development.
Facts
- Appellant Sujit Tiwari, brother of the Master of the ship, was one of the accused in the case.
- The ship MV Hennry was boarded by NCB officials after being informed by the Indian Coast Guard.
- A substance testing positive for heroin was found on the ship, leading to the detention of all 8 persons onboard.
- The narcotic substance, weighing approximately 1445 kg in 1526 packets, was seized from the vessel.
- The Master of the ship, Suprit Tiwari, claimed they were working for an Iranian national who purchased the heroin and made cavities in the ship for smuggling.
- The crew members were offered large amounts to transport the heroin illegally, resulting in two crew members leaving the ship.
- The ship crew destroyed the Automatic Identification System to avoid detection by the owner or others.
- Instead of going to Egypt as directed, the crew decided to bring the ship to India, where they changed its name to MV Hennry.
- The intention was to sell the drugs in India and dismantle the ship after delivery to buyers Vishal Kumar Yadav and Irfan Sheikh.
- All non-Indian crew members deboarded the ship after concealing the drugs.
Also Read: Interpretation of Pre-deposit Requirement under SARFAESI Act
Arguments
- The appellant’s counsel, Mr. Siddharth Dave, argues that there is insufficient evidence linking the appellant to the alleged conspiracy to smuggle contraband into India.
- He contends that there is no material connecting the appellant to the crime in question.
- The appellant’s defense is centered around the lack of concrete evidence implicating him in the smuggling operation.
- The respondent argues that the appellant cannot benefit from Section 167 CrPC and Section 36A of the NDPS Act since the complaint was filed within time.
- The ASG submits that bail cannot be granted to the appellant due to the bar of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
- The ASG opposes the appellant’s claim for default bail as well.
Also Read: Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd. v. Actual Names: Electricity Restoration Order
Analysis
- The appellant, Suprit Tiwari, along with 7 crew members, decided to bring the ship to India to dispose of drugs for more profit.
- The appellant may not have been fully aware of the entire conspiracy according to the prosecution story.
- Suprit Tiwari, the Master of the ship, admitted to carrying contraband substances.
- Despite being in custody for over 2 years, the appellant is young and has no prior records.
- The appellant’s case is considered different from the other accused as there is a possibility of his innocence.
- The appellant assisted in deleting names to ease crew members’ disembarkation process, indicating awareness of some illegal activity.
- The appellant had hidden drugs in cavities and railings on the ship, but uncertainty remains if he knew about the smuggling.
- The appellant’s statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is considered, even though he later retracted it.
- The Indian Coast Guard intercepted the vessel based on intelligence regarding suspicious activities.
- Considering the lack of substantial evidence beyond messages and the retracted statement, bail is deemed appropriate for the appellant.
- Stringent conditions to be imposed upon the appellant
- Details of the conditions to be specified
- Importance of enforcing these conditions
Also Read: Kottayam Bank vs. Insurance Company: Farmers’ Rights Upheld
Decision
- The appellant, Sujit Tiwari, is directed to join the investigation as and when called by the NCB authorities.
- Pending applications have been disposed of.
- Sujit Tiwari is granted bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,00,000/- with two sureties of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, NDPS Court at Porbandar.
- Sujit Tiwari must deposit his passport with the Court.
- He is required to either stay in Porbandar or Kolkata and is prohibited from going to any other place.
- If in Kolkata, he must report to the Entally police station daily at 09:00 A.M., and in Porbandar, report to the NCB Investigating Officer at 09:00 A.M. everyday.
- NCB is entitled to apply for cancellation of bail if Sujit Tiwari violates any of the conditions.
- Sujit Tiwari must provide his cell-phone number to the police authorities and cannot change it without the trial court’s permission.
- He is prohibited from hampering or interfering with the investigation in any manner.
- During the trial, Sujit Tiwari is not allowed to delay the proceedings in any way.
Case Title: SUJIT TIWARI Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT (2020 INSC 101)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001897-001897 / 2019
