Drug Trafficking Case and Bail Decision: Sujit Tiwari vs. State of Gujarat

The case of Sujit Tiwari vs. State of Gujarat revolves around a high-profile drug trafficking case involving the smuggling of approximately 1445 kg of narcotics. The Supreme Court had to decide whether the appellant, Sujit Tiwari, should be granted bail considering the circumstances surrounding his alleged involvement in the smuggling operation.

Background of the Case

The case originated when the Indian Coast Guard intercepted a vessel, MV Hennry, on July 29, 2017, following intelligence reports about suspicious activities. The vessel, flying the Panama flag, was found near the Indian coast. Upon inspection, it was discovered that the ship’s Master, Suprit Tiwari, along with seven other Indian crew members, did not possess any valid documents for their voyage.

Following questioning, Suprit Tiwari admitted to carrying a substantial quantity of contraband. The investigation led to the discovery of 1526 packets containing approximately 1445 kg of heroin. These were hidden in fabricated cavities inside the ship’s tanks and railings. The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) was informed, and it initiated an investigation.

The case expanded when it was revealed that Suprit Tiwari had informed his brother, the appellant, Sujit Tiwari, about his illegal activities. Sujit Tiwari was arrested on August 4, 2017, on the grounds that he was part of a larger conspiracy to smuggle the narcotics into India.

Legal Proceedings

The NCB filed a complaint before the Special Judge, NDPS Court, Porbandar, against Sujit Tiwari and others. The appellant applied for bail, but the trial court rejected his application, citing the seriousness of the offense and the restrictions imposed by Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act).

The appellant then approached the Supreme Court, arguing that he was wrongly implicated and that the evidence against him was insufficient.

Arguments of the Appellant (Sujit Tiwari)

The appellant made the following key arguments:

There was no direct evidence linking him to the crime, other than a few WhatsApp messages exchanged with his brother.
The prosecution’s case primarily relied on his statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which he had later retracted.
The appellant was a B.Tech graduate and had no prior criminal record.
Since he had been in custody for over two years, continued detention would be unjustified without clear evidence of his involvement.

Arguments of the Respondents (State of Gujarat & NCB)

The prosecution countered with the following arguments:

Under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail could only be granted if the Court was satisfied that the accused was not guilty and unlikely to commit another offense while on bail.
The appellant was aware of his brother’s illegal activities and had actively participated in assisting the smuggling operation.
WhatsApp messages exchanged between the appellant and his brother suggested that he had knowledge of the smuggling plan.
The severity of the crime warranted his continued detention.

Key Observations of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court analyzed the case based on the following considerations:

The evidence available against the appellant and whether it directly implicated him.
Whether the requirements under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were met.
The duration of the appellant’s custody and whether it justified granting bail.

After reviewing the case, the Court made the following findings:

The appellant’s alleged involvement was limited to conversations with his brother, and no concrete evidence linked him to the planning or execution of the smuggling.
There was a reasonable possibility that he may not have been aware of the specific nature of the contraband being smuggled.
The appellant had been in custody for over two years with no substantial progress in the trial.
The prosecution’s reliance on a statement made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which had been retracted, weakened its case.

Verbatim Court Findings

The Supreme Court, while granting bail, stated:

“Reasonable possibility exists that the appellant may be acquitted. He has been behind bars since his arrest on 04.08.2017 and is a young man aged about 25 years. He is a B.Tech Graduate. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of this case, we feel that this is a fit case where the appellant is entitled to bail.”

Additionally, the Court observed:

“The appellant’s case is different from that of the other accused. There is no conclusive proof that he was aware that the ship was carrying narcotics. The main allegation against him is that he assisted in altering crew lists, which by itself does not establish that he was part of a drug smuggling conspiracy.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant and granted bail under the following conditions:

The appellant was required to furnish a bail bond of Rs. 10,00,000 with two sureties of the same amount.
His passport was to be deposited with the court.
He was required to stay either in Porbandar or Kolkata and report daily to the police station.
He had to cooperate with the investigation and was prohibited from interfering with the trial process.

Final Verdict: Bail granted, with stringent conditions.

Petitioner Name: Sujit Tiwari.
Respondent Name: State of Gujarat & Another.
Judgment By: Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice Deepak Gupta.
Place Of Incident: Porbandar, Gujarat.
Judgment Date: 28-01-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Sujit Tiwari vs State of Gujarat & A Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 28-01-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Drug Possession Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Criminal Conspiracy
See all petitions in Judgment by L. Nageswara Rao
See all petitions in Judgment by Deepak Gupta
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category