Never Arrested Or Interrogated Nambi Narayanan In ISRO Espionage Case : RB Sreekumar Tells Kerala High Court

The Kerala HC on Wednesday heard the anticipatory bail pleas of former Intelligence Bureau officers who have been accused of conspiring to frame former ISRO scientist Nambi Narayanan in the 1994 ISRO Espionage case.The matter was heard by a bench of Justice K. Babu. It may be recalled that the Supreme Court had in December 2022 set aside the previous orders of the High Court granting pre-arrest bail to the accused and remanded the matters for fresh consideration.During the hearing which went on for several hours, it was submitted by Senior Advocate S. Sreekumar on behalf of the former Gujarat Director General of Police, R.B. Sreekumar IPS, that he had not been present during the interrogation of Narayanan, and that it was only a 'presumption' that he had deputed the interrogation to his juniors. Sreekumar was then the Deputy Director of the Intelligence Bureau.He apprised the Court that the investigation had been transferred to the CBI immediately after the arrest of Nambi Naryan. The senior counsel further pleaded the Court not to be influenced by the report of DK Jain Committee. The DK Jain Committee had been constituted by the Apex Court to inquire in to the role of the police officials in the conspiracy against Nambi Narayanan. Narayanan had been accused of selling secrets pertaining to ISRO's cryogenic programme to alleged spies. The senior counsel went on to elucidate the facts of the case to the Court and informed the Court that on November 1st, 1994, immediately after arrest of Maryam Rasheeda (Rasheeda was arrested on October 20, 1994), Nambi Narayanan had submitted his application for Voluntary retirement (VRS), which was accepted on same day and he was relieved.On a pointed query by the Court as to whether Narayanan had submitted his resignation before the registration of the crime, the counsel replied that it was before the registration of the second crime under the Official Secrets Act that Narayanan had submitted his voluntary retirement. Narayanan was then arrested after the registration of the second crime, on 30th November 1994. The senior counsel emphasized in this regard that the DK Jain report could not be treated as a sole matter for considering bail application. He further pointed out that he was an officer who had received the President's medal for excellency in service, and at his old age, he had to face such allegations. "I never arrested, I never sought for his(Narayanan) judicial custody"he argued. Advocate Ajithkumar Sasthamangalam, appearing on behalf of accused numbers 1 and 2, namely, Vijayan and Thampi S. Durgadutt, submitted before the Court that he was not a party to the commission enquiry. "I was not given an opportunity to represent my case. I was totally blank", the counsel averred. He went on to add that, "Law says affected party be given an opportunity of hearing. I am not making any complaint; I am saying I did not get a chance to say what I want to say. I don't know what the CBI charge against me is or anything. I am totally in the dark". He submitted that neither of his clients had any role in this case. "My role was only upto 1994, that too I was supervising officer. The act of petitioners don’t come under any of the offences charged against them as per FIR", he submitted. Advocate Sasthamangalam further submitted that of the offences alleged against him, apart from Section 365, all others were bailable. He further submitted that the offence of forgery which had been levelled against other officials, could not be charged against his clients. On behalf of retired Deputy Central Intelligence Officer, P.S. Jayaprakash, it was submitted by Advocate Kaleeswaram Raj that the former had never met Narayanan in the first place. "He was only a middle level officer. Part of team helping Kerala Police from 4.11,1994 to 13.11.1994 alone. Thereafter, he left the team. There is no case either for CBI or for de facto complainant that he was questioned by Accused 11 during this time. There is no such allegation", he submitted. He added that even at present, the CBI did not have any individual allegation against accused 11 or any other accused, for that matter. "The Jain committee report also had not stated the individual allegations against me. The report ought not to be relied on as if it is the final word", Advocate Kaleeswaram Raj submitted. He stressed that the case was an act of vengeance since the entire events had unfolded 28 years ago, and his client was now 75 years old. Advocate V. Ajakumar representing former DGP Dr. Sibi Mathews, averred before the Court that what was pending before the Court was the original application of anticipatory bail.He submitted that the allegation against the accused was that they had forced the confession. "The investigation lasted for more than one year. It was I who recommended to the government that the matter should be sent to National agency for detailed investigation. My recommendation was considered, and the investigation was...

Never Arrested Or Interrogated Nambi Narayanan In ISRO Espionage Case : RB Sreekumar Tells Kerala High Court

Navya Benny

Tags