SAJITH SHYAM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred invoking Sec. 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (NIA Act) challenging the order dtd. 7/8/2024 passed by the Special Court for Trial of NIA Cases, Kerala (the Special Court), dismissing the application for bail filed by the appellant in R.C.No.02/2024/NIA/KOC. The appellant is the third accused in the case.

(2.) The case was one registered initially by Nedumbassery Police on 19/5/2024 under Sec. 370 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sec. 19 of Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, against one Sabith Korukulath Nasar on the allegation that the accused induced gullible victims by deceptive means to donate their organs in lieu of money and transplanted the same to recipients at Iran by trafficking them. In the course of the investigation, the appellant was arrested on 24/5/2024, after arraying him as the third accused in the case. The allegation against the appellant is that he is a childhood friend of the first accused; that the first accused is the kingpin of the crime and the appellant played a very important role in camouflaging the proceeds of the crime. It was also alleged that the appellant received money directly from the organ recipients in his account. Though the appellant preferred applications for bail, the same were rejected mainly on the ground that custody of the appellant is essential to unearth the racket in the aforesaid organ trade. The case being a cross border crime, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over the investigation later and re-registered the case as R.C.No.02/2024/NIA/KOC on 3/7/2024.

(3.) The appellant, thereupon, preferred a bail application before the Special Court. The application was opposed mainly on the ground that the incriminating materials found are sufficient to substantiate his involvement in the crime; that the first accused in the case is still at large; that cross border crime require in-depth investigation as it has its roots in different States and foreign countries; that the appellant has international connections and is influential and that if the appellant is released on bail, he is likely to sabotage the investigation. The Special Court noticed that there has been monetary transactions and frequent telephonic communication between the appellant and the first accused who is the kingpin of the crime; that the investigation in the case has not concluded yet and that therefore, releasing the appellant on bail at the said stage would frustrate the investigation for, the appellant on being released is likely to influence victims or intimidate them to destroy evidence. The bail application was accordingly, dismissed. The Special Court also took note of the fact that the first accused is yet to be arrested, while dismissing the application for bail of the appellant. It is aggrieved by the said decision of the Special Court that the appellant has preferred this appeal.