Case: RAMJHAN GANI PALANI Vs. NATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY AND ANR

there is more than a prima facie case made out against him, pointing to his involvement in the offence. 5. Mr. R. Basant, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the High Court has gravely erred in denying the relief of bail to the petitioner and the entire case of the prosecution is based on suspicion; that the petitioner is a victim of unhappy coincidents of being at the wrong place at the wrong time; that except for the petitioner, none of the twelve crew members on the boat were arrested or charged as accused persons; that the petitioner has clean antecedents and there is no likelihood of his committing any overt act if granted bail. 6. Much emphasis has been laid by learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner on the fact that merely because the petitioner had replied to the communication Mohammed on the VHF Channel with the words Ramzan haan bolo, cannot be treated as sufficient to reject his bail application, more so, when the petitioners name happens to be Ramjhan Gani Palani. Therefore, simply because the petitioner had replied on Channel No.8 to the radio operator who had transmitted the aforesaid message on VHF Channels No.8 and 16, can hardly be treated as a ground to substantiate the case of the prosecution. Reference was also made to the invoice for a sum of 3,47,325/- (Rupees Three lakhs Rs. forty- seven thousand three hundred twenty-five only), being the value of the seven fish sold by the petitioner after the boat was released. It was contended that out of the seven fish, five fish were Ghol fish colloquially known as sea gold weighing 104 kg, which are a rare catch and very expensive. The price of this fish is stated to be pegged at around 1400/- Rs. (Rupee Fourteen Hundred only) per kg in the market. Claiming that even on an earlier occasion, the petitioner had gone on the high seas looking for Ghol fish that was caught and sold for a handsome amount which was enough to demonstrate that he was neither involved in illegal trade of narcotics, nor was he tipped to approach the Pakistani Flag ship, detained by the authorities. Lastly, it was contended that merely because the boat and the crew members were found to be neat and clean, could not be a ground to deny the relief of bail to the petitioner. 7. Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondent No.1/NIA vehemently opposed the present petition and submitted that after the six Pakistani nationals found on board of the Pakistani fishing vessel were arrested on 24.05.2019, the petitioner was arrested two days later on 26.5.2019. On 15.11.2019, a complaint was registered under the provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985, at the instance of DRI before the Special Judge for NDPS Cases at Bhuj, Gujarat against all the seven arrested accused including the petitioner. As per the said complaint, the petitioner was charged with offences punishable under Sections 28, 29 and 30 of the NDPS Act for which the punishment prescribed is imprisonment for a minimum period of ten years, which can extend up to a maximum period of twenty years. Subsequently, on the orders of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, further investigation of the case was transferred to the NIA and the case was reregistered on 26.05.2020 at NIA Police Station, New Delhi vide RC No.24/2020/NIA/DLI. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/NIA stated that on 18.12.2020, NIA had filed a charge sheet before the NIA Special Court, Ahmedabad against the 6 arrested Pakistani nationals and the petitioner herein for offences related to the attempted smuggling of the narcotic drug, Heroin. He pointed out that as per the charge sheet, nine Pakistani nationals who are absconding, have been shown as wanted accused and their role in the matter is still under investigation. As on date, charges have been framed against the petitioner and the six arrested Pakistani nationals. It was urged that the petitioner is under an erroneous assumption that the case against him is a routine matter while over-looking the fact that the present case relates to organized smuggling of narcotic drugs, for sale in India and for generating funds meant for promoting terrorist activities, which is a serious offence and a valid ground for denying him the relief of bail. 9. We have perused the impugned order and carefully considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, duly recorded in paras 8 and 9 of the impugned judgment and are of the prima facie view that there is sufficient material on record to deny the discretionary relief of bail to the petitioner. 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. The petitioner would be entitled to justify his presence in the fishing boat, at the scene of crime which is sought to be described as a sheer coincidence during the trial. The explanation offered by the petitioner of having responded to the call Mohammed-MohammedRamzan-Ramzan on Channel No.8, instead of Channel No.16 which is the specifically earmarked channel for communication with fishermen and for Ship-to-Ship contact, would also be available to him at that stage. 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. 10. Records reveal that the chargesheet has been filed by the respondent/NIA on 18.12.2020. As per the said chargesheet, nine Pakistani nationals are still absconding. Further, investigation in the case is still pending. The petitioner has been chargesheeted for a serious offence where the minimum punishment prescribed is of ten years. We are, therefore, not inclined to exercise our discretion in favour of the petitioner by interfering with the impugned order, at present.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]9. We have perused the impugned order and carefully considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, duly recorded in paras 8 and 9 of the impugned judgment and are of the prima facie view that there is sufficient material on record to deny the discretionary relief of bail to the petitioner. 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. The petitioner would be entitled to justify his presence in the fishing boat, at the scene of crime which is sought to be described as a sheer coincidence during the trial. The explanation offered by the petitioner of having responded to the call Mohammed-MohammedRamzan-Ramzan on Channel No.8, instead of Channel No.16 which is the specifically earmarked channel for communication with fishermen and for Ship-to-Ship contact, would also be available to him at that stage. 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.10. Records reveal that the chargesheet has been filed by the respondent/NIA on 18.12.2020. As per the said chargesheet, nine Pakistani nationals are still absconding. Further, investigation in the case is still pending. The petitioner has been chargesheeted for a serious offence where the minimum punishment prescribed is of ten years. We are, therefore, not inclined to exercise our discretion in favour of the petitioner by interfering with the impugned order, at present.