2023 (1) TMI 1412 - HC - Indian Laws

Grant of bail - Illegal smuggle of cattle to Bangladesh - conspiracy with BSF and customs officials - Gravity of seriousness of the accusation - Materials collected in support of the accusation - Influencing witnesses and derailing investigation - Bail on parity circumstances peculiar to the petitioner. Gravity of seriousness of the accusation - HELD THAT - Petitioner as a powerful political personality illegally aided and abetted the cattle smuggler Md. Enamul Haque in the venture. He used his influence to ensure smooth passage of cattle through the Districts of Birbhum and Murshidabad to reach the international border in lieu of wrongful gains and amassed enormous illegitimate wealth. It is contended he is not the principal offender. As per prosecution case, power and influence of the petitioner was essential for the smooth operation of the cattle smuggling syndicate in the Districts of Birbhum and Murshidabad. Without his patronage the organized crime could not have been perpetuated. His role in the crime is pivotal and cannot be discounted as a minor one - the arrest of the petitioner cannot be said to be unlawful or actuated with malice. On the other hand, it appears to be founded on the gravity and the seriousness of the accusation levelled against him. Materials collected in support of the accusation - HELD THAT - The materials on record are corroborated by regular telephonic communications between Md. Enamul Haque, Sehgal Hossain and the petitioner. Materials collected during investigation indicate that petitioner used to talk with other conspirators through the mobile phone of co-accused Sehgal. It is argued the contents of their conversations are unknown. It is relevant to note CDRs show meeting of minds between the conspirators. Nature of the deliberations can be inferred from the statement of Sk Abdul who endorses payments made to petitioner by the cattle smuggler Md. Enamul Haque through Sehgal and another co-accused. These circumstances give rise to a reasonable inference of conspiracy. Once existence of conspiracy is shown, acts of each conspirator in pursuance of the common intention would bind the others and establish their culpability - Hence, there are ample materials collected during investigation implicating the petitioner in the crime. Influencing witnesses and derailing investigation - HELD THAT - Though no medical papers in support of such assault were placed, the State Police Administration in post haste obtained police custody of the petitioner in the said case - To avoid pre-judging the issue we choose not to make any comment with regard to its legality save and except observing the arrest and police custody of the petitioner in the belated FIR registered against him appears to be an overzealous and unjustified exercise for reasons not far to seek. Petitioner continues to hold political office and materials show he is involved in intimidation of witnesses - Further investigation with regard to the illegitimate wealth amassed by the petitioner through wrongful gain is continuing. To release of the petitioner on bail at this stage would adversely affect the morale and confidence of witnesses and seriously impact the collection of evidence during further investigation. Bail on parity circumstances peculiar to the petitioner - HELD THAT - The public servant, i.e., Satish Kumar has also been enlarged on bail. Hence, petitioner ought to be released on bail on parity. Md. Enamul Haque was released on bail by the Apex Court after one year. Petitioner is in custody for about 5 months. He cannot claim parity with Md. Enamul Haque. In addition thereto, petitioner continues to hold a powerful political post. He has overwhelming influence not only in society but upon the State administration - Paramount influence of the petitioner as a political heavy weight and materials collected showing misuse of such power to influence witnesses and derail the investigation places him in a unique position in comparison to others who are on bail. Enlargement of the petitioner on bail would have an ominous impact not only on the witnesses but on the smooth administration of criminal justice in the case. The petitioner cannot be enlarged on bail at this stage - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Gravity and seriousness of the accusation.
2. Materials collected in support of the accusation.
3. Possibility of influencing witnesses and derailing the investigation.
4. Bail on the principle of parity and circumstances peculiar to the petitioner.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

(i) Gravity and Seriousness of the Accusation:

The case involves allegations against the petitioner, a powerful political figure, for his role in facilitating the smuggling of cattle to Bangladesh by using his influence over BSF and customs officials. The court identified the nature of the accusation as falling under Category D (economic offences) as per the guidelines laid down in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI. The court noted that the organized crime of cattle smuggling has far-reaching impacts on the economic and national security of the country. The petitioner's role was pivotal in ensuring the smooth operation of the smuggling syndicate, and his influence was essential for the crime to be perpetuated, making his involvement significant and not minor. The court rejected the argument that the petitioner was singled out due to political vendetta, noting that his role and influence were incomparable to other accused who were not arrested.

(ii) Materials Collected in Support of the Accusation:

The court examined the materials collected during the investigation, which included statements from witnesses and call data records (CDRs). The court acknowledged that conspiracies are often proven through circumstantial evidence and noted the statement of a prosecution witness, Sk. Abdul Rahim, which indicated a close nexus between the petitioner and the principal smuggler, Md. Enamul Haque. The court found that the materials on record, including regular telephonic communications and payments made to the petitioner, provided ample evidence to support the accusation of conspiracy. The court concluded that there were sufficient materials implicating the petitioner in the crime.

(iii) Possibility of Influencing Witnesses and Derailing Investigation:

The court considered the arguments regarding the petitioner's influence and potential to intimidate witnesses. It noted that one vital witness was missing and another had been threatened by the petitioner from jail. The court also observed that the petitioner had considerable control over the State Police Administration, which had assisted him in avoiding a production warrant issued by the Enforcement Directorate. The court found that the petitioner's influence was still active and that he had misused it to intimidate witnesses and subvert the investigation. The court distinguished this case from P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement, where the allegations of influencing witnesses were found to be unfounded.

(iv) Bail on Parity and Circumstances Peculiar to the Petitioner:

The petitioner argued for bail on the principle of parity, noting that the principal accused, Md. Enamul Haque, and the public servant, Satish Kumar, were on bail. The court rejected this argument, noting that the petitioner's situation was unique due to his powerful political position and influence. The court emphasized that the petitioner's influence and misuse of power to derail the investigation placed him in a different category from the other accused who were on bail. The court concluded that granting bail to the petitioner would adversely affect the morale and confidence of witnesses and the smooth administration of criminal justice.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the petitioner should not be enlarged on bail at this stage due to the gravity of the accusations, the materials collected, the potential to influence witnesses, and the unique circumstances of the petitioner's influence and power. The court emphasized that the observations in the order were for the purpose of disposing of the bail application and would not affect subsequent stages of the proceeding, including the trial.