ISRO Espionage Case A Conspiracy To Derail Cryogenic Technology, Custodial Interrogation Required : CBI Tells Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court on January 13 was told by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation that the entire conspiracy in ISRO espionage was to derail the development of Cryogenic Technology.

ASG submitted before the court that the matter is of serious nature involving national security and foreign powers may be involved in the conspiracy to foist a false case against eminent scientists of ISRO and custodial interrogation was necessary for proper investigation. Advocate C S Unnikrishnan appearing on behalf of former ISRO scientist Nambi Narayanan sided with the contentions raised by ASG.

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

ASG submitted before the Court that the entire conspiracy with possible foreign hands involved was to derail the development of Cryogenic Technology.

“At that time Cryogenic Technology was denied to India because of the atomic bomb testing in Pokhran. Russia refused to hand over the tech, the cryogenic engine was being developed by some senior scientists including Nambi Narayan and the entire conspiracy was to derail the development of Cryogenic Technology,” ASG submitted.

ASG submitted that the arrest of ISRO Scientists was malafide as it was carried out based on incorrect interrogation report and were accused were falsely implicated.

He further submitted that S. Vijayan, former Inspector of Special Branch (1st accused) deliberately brought the media personnel at that time of arrest of Mariam Rasheeda by falsely projecting her to be a spy and thereby defaming her and also blowing up the case. ASG submitted that Vijayan had also filed a false case against Mariam Rasheeda under the Foreigners Act for overstaying in India while keeping her passport and ticket without any authority. A case was also registered against him for molesting Mariam Rasheeda. It was also submitted that Vijayan also allowed interrogation by IB officials illegally and furnished a false report for registering a case against Mariam Rasheeda and Fauzia Hassan under Official Secrets Act.

The allegation against retired Deputy Central Intelligence Officer, P.S. Jayaprakash raised by CBI is that he prepared incorrect interrogation report and was part of the IB team which tortured the accused persons while they were in the custody of Kerala Police during interrogation.

Advocate Kaleeswaram Raj appearing for P.S. Jayaprakash, however, submitted that there is no cogent material submitted before the Court to connect this matter with the question of national security.

“Suspicion cannot result in denial of freedom, suspicion cannot be the basis for such a drastic action after 28 years”, said the Counsel while stressing the fact that there is only a broad allegation and no individual case has been built up.

The Counsel also submitted that there are no evidence furnished before the Court to show that Nambi Narayanan was in charge of the project for Cryogenic Technology Development, he further alleged that several scientists disowned the claim.

Advocate Ajith Kumar Sasthamangalam, appearing on behalf of accused numbers 1 and 2, namely, Vijayan and Thampi S. Durgadutt contended that a Public Interest Litigation was filed during the course of the investigation of this case in which a Division Bench of Kerala High Court had an occasion to scrutinize the video recording of the persons while under the custody. “From it is crystal clear that these three accused gave answers to the questions without any fear or torture. They are seen in a very jovial and calm mood and free from any stress or strain. The answers given by these accused at the time of questing can never be considered as a result of any torture by the Police or any other authorities. So the answer given by these accused when they are questioned by the CBI at a later stage that they were subjected to torture by police has no substance and it is only to be rejected”, the Counsel argued.

The Counsel went on to argue that it is for the premiere agency to find out whether there is any substance in the belated disclosure or allegation made by Nambi Narayanan and so far there is no material to even prima facie suggest that there is an international conspiracy.

Senior Advocate S. Sreekumar appearing for former Gujarat Director General of Police, R.B. Sreekumar IPS, continued his submissions. The Counsel submitted that with regard to the arrest of D Sasikumaran and Nambi Narayanan, the IB has no role to play, in such circumstances the allegations raised under Section 165 against the petitioner and also Section 365 IPC have no legs to stand.

“Maybe in the course of their official duty, the State Police has arrested these persons, but we only assisted as directed by the Central Government. So no offence under Section 365 i.e., kidnapping can be alleged, because we never sought for remand as far as IB is concerned. IB had no power under CrPC, unlike CBI or NIA where there are special statutes extending the powers under CrPC to such special investigation agencies. IB is only collecting data and transmitting it to the government, if that is so, these allegations were raised against the members of IB including the petitioner who is the 7th accused, this is prima facie without any basis at all,” submitted the Counsel.

Source: :Livelaw.in