Nambi Narayanan's Arrest Was Conspiracy To Stall Cryogenic Technology Development: Counsel Tells Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court on Thursday, was told by the counsel appearing on behalf of former ISRO scientist Nambi Narayanan accused in the 1994 Espionage Case, that the arrest of the scientist was done as part of a conspiracy. The Court was told that this was done in order to stall the cryogenic engine that is crucial for India's space program. 

The Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Babu today continued the hearing on the anticipatory bail pleas that were filed former Intelligence Bureau and Kerala police officers who were accused of conspiring to frame Narayanan in the 1994 Espionage case. 

Advocate C. Unnikrishnan, who appeared on behalf of Narayanan the process for arrest should have been left to CBI, and questioned as to why there had been such an emergency in arresting a senior scientist of ISRO. He further pointed out that the FIR had been registered without consulting the ISRO or the Central Government, and the scientists were also arrested even without conducting a search of their office or residence. 

"What was the intention of the same? Only to stall the cryogenic, that is my argument", the counsel submitted. 

Advocate Unnikrishnan went on to submit that the Investigating Agency should not merely bolster up a case, but bring forth the unvarnished truth. "Because they had some conspiracy, this was derailed", he argued. 

The counsel pointed out the importance of adherence to the provisions of the Official Secrets Act, particularly Section 13. 

"An ordinary prudent person can understand effect of the provision. Since this is concerning rocket technology of Govt of India, they should have consulted with ISRO or Indian Govt if any suspected matter came to their notice or they noticed any espionage activity. Their allegation is that a foreign power was involved in the alleged activity. My submission is that the registration of the FIR itself was deliberate. They ought not to have done that without consultation", the Counsel argued. 

Advocate Unnikrishnan argued that from the very beginning, the officials had been "cooking up a story to bring the matter under Official Secrets Act". 

To the contention raised that the officials had not been made a party nor were consulted as regards the Jain Committee report, the counsel replied that the Committee was constituted only to ascertain the 'ways and means' to take action against the erring officials.

"So the accused persons need not be consulted, and that argument is not sustainable", he argued. He further alleged that all the arrests in the case were made in a casual manner. 

"Now the only question in these bail applications is whether custodial interrogation is necessary or not. Who all are behind this, who are benefitted, it is a matter to be looked into. The conspiracy angle is to be looked into", the counsel added while submitting that the accused officials had to be in custody in order for the investigation to be conducted.

He relied upon Apex Court decisions in this regard, as well, in order to emphasize that unless there are special circumstances warranting grant of anticipatory bail, the same shall not be granted. 

"In these type of serious cases, CBI cannot collect evidence unless they are in custody since its a huge conspiracy", the counsel concluded. 

During the hearing today, Advocate Ajakumar, who is appearing on behalf of former DGP Dr. Sibi Mathews, had continued his submissions from the previous day, argued before the Court that the CBI was not competent to to register FIR alleging Section 195. 

The Counsel submitted that the arrest of Narayanan had been made on the basis of sufficient record. 

"We have sufficient record to show our action to take them into custody is justified. Firstly, immediately after the arrest of Mariam Rasheeda, Narayanan submitted his VRS, and secondly, there were also enquiries going on against Narayanan and another scientist in this regard", he submitted. 

He further added that the question of international conspiracy put forth by Narayanan could not be accepted without any evidence. 

"He was lawfully arrest and produced before the Court. CBI also did the same. After arrest, Narayanan was in our custody only for few days", he argued. 

Advocate Ajakumar further went on to point out that it was his client, Mathews, who had recommended the Government to transfer the case to CBI on certain grounds.

"If I have a suspicion that this FIR is a false document, will I recommend another agency to look into or further investigate the matter?", he asked. 

The counsel went on to submit, "I am an officer with very credible background. I am almost 70 years now and a serious cardiac patient undergoing treatment. My humble submission is this is the fag end of our retirement life. We are ready to cooperate with any investigation. But why are these five persons alone being chased? My humble submission is that the anticipatory bail application filed by my client may kindly be allowed". 

Advocate Pankaj Mehta appearing on behalf of V.K. Maini, who was a member of IB, submitted before the Court that his client had no role in this case, and that his role was only limited to the collection of documents. 

"I was just directed to go to Kerala and collect the data. I was only collecting information, and giving it back to the authorities. I had no role to play. As I was only discharging my duties, I will certainly be protected under Section 21 IPC". 

Advocate Prasad Gandhi, representing Mariam Rasheeda and Fauzia Hassan also made his submissions before the Court today. 

Case Title: P.S. Jayaprakash v. Central Bureau of Investigation and other connected matters