CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION V. P.S JAYAPRAKASH

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

Case Name	CBI V. P.s Jayaprakash & another
Citation	(2023) 1 SCC 314
Criminal Appeal No.	SLPs; 8008-8010 of 2021
Date of Judgment	02-12-2022
Appellant	The Central Bureau of Investigation
Respondent	P.S Jayaprakash & Another
Bench	Justice. M.R Shah Justice. C.T Ravikumar
Statutes Referred	Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section. 438- directions for grant of bail to person apprehending arrestSection. 173(2)- Report of police officer/Investigating officer on completion of investigation placed before Magistrate.
Decision	Appeal-Allowed Anticipatory Bail granted by High Court of Kerala- Dismissed

ABSTARCT

The case discussed in this analysis is concerned with the CBI V. P.S Jayprakash & Anr. The case also known as the ISRO Espionage case or the ISRO Spy case involves allegations of espionage, false accusations and the wrongful arrest of some senior scientists of the ISRO. The Scientists were accused of having leaked confidential and sensitive data to foreign agencies. Overtime, The case unraveled and it became apparent that the charges instituted against the scientists were unfounded and politically motivated. All charges were cleared by the CBI and the Supreme Court of India. However the officials of the Kerala state police force and the state Intelligence bureau, who had persecuted the scientists were accused of conspiracy by the CBI.The Kerala HC granted anticipatory bails to the accused which was held flawed by the Supreme Court.This case is viewed as a significant miscarriage of justice and an example of the legal system being misused for political and personal gains at the compromise of the integrity of the country’s space and scientific research programs.

KEYWORDS:

ISRO Espionage case- ISRO spy case- Nambi Narayan-Anticipatory Bail- Section 438, CrPC-Kerala High Cout-CBI–Supreme Court of India-P.S Jayaprakash-Kerala Intelligence Bureau

FACTS:

Appellants: The Central Bureau of Investigation

Respondent: P.S Jayaprakash( Retired Intelligence Officer)  & Another

The case in discussion is the ISRO Espionage case of 1994 or the ISRO Conspiracy case. P.S Jayaprakash.  The case dates back to the 1990s where the Kerala State Police force and the state Intelligence bureau bring certain charges against some senior scientists of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO). The case entailed the alleged attempt of espionage and selling of documents of great confidential nature pertaining to indigenous rocket engine designs.[1]The prosecution was initiated by the state police against

• Ms.Mariyam Rasheeda – a national of Maldivian origin , as per Section 14,Foreigner’s Act 1946
• Ms.Fauzia Hassan- a Maldivian national
• Sri.D.Sasikumaran- Scientist, ISRO
• Nambi Narayan- Scientist, ISRO

In the year of 1994, upon the request of the Government of Kerala the case was taken up for investigation by the CBI. The finding of the CBI, in its report suggested that no allegations put up against the scientists of ISRO were found to be true. The intelligence bureau further asked the state government and the government of India to proceed with disciplinary actions against the officials of the state who were alleged to have acted negligently and recklessly in the process of investigation. However the state government took no cognizance of the same and initiated the investigations through the investigation agency of the state. The matter was further taken to the Supreme Court of India, by way of appeal, which struck down the decision of the state government, followed by the establishment of the Justice Shri.D.K Jain committee. The committee recommended a central investigation agency to discover the true nexus in the fabrication of false allegations against the scientists.The committee in its findings traced out 18 members of the state police force and the intelligence bureau alleged to have involvement in the fabrication of the matter.The committee findings as reiterated by the apex court held Sri.S.Vijayan –who wrongfully confined Ms.Mariyam and retained her passports and air tickets thereby preventing her from leaving the coutry. Similarly other officials of the police force like Sri.Thampi S durgadutt and members of the intelligence agency like Sri.Siby Mathews, who headed the SIT, Sri.R.B Sreekumar, Deputy Director, IB Team.[2] One of the accused Dr. Siby Mathews was granted bail by the Trial court, however the duration of validity of the anticipatory bail was limited to 60 days. The accused then approached High court, where he was granted anticipatory bail.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA:

Respondents: The Central Bureau of Investigation – Represented by ASG of India

Appellants: P.S Jayaprakash and Another- Represented by Senior Adv. Shri Kapil Sibal

The supreme while striking down the judgment of the High Court of Kerala viewed that the High court failed to acknowledge that the committee formed to conduct an investigation into the matter. The committee was formed and was to be headed by a former judge of the Apex Court, Justice D.K Jain. The Supreme court drew certain observations and directed the lodging of a FIR. Following this FIR, The accused approached the Trial Court and then the High Court which granted them an Anticipatory Bail. The court held that the High Court did not take cognizance of the individual allegations brought against each of the accused. The High Court while granting anticipatory bail, lacked the consideration of the specific role played by each of the accused. The Apex court Therefore. further held that the anticipatory bails granted to the respondents were capable of being quashed down, based on these substantive observations made by the Apex Court. Further the court directed the applications to be taken up afresh by the High Court and decide on the said matter in accordance to the provisions of law and in regards to the observations made by the Supreme Court.[3]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF Kerala

Taking cognizance of the directions of the Supreme Court of India, the High Court of Kerala took up the bail applications of the accused and pronounced the judgment on 20-01-2023.

CONTENTIONS:

The counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant contended that the appellant , P.S Jayaprakash was a mid-level officer who had no role in the interrogation and persecution of Nambi Narayan, who brought charges of conspiracy against the officials of state police and the IB.[4]

The counsels appearing for the accused individuals presented several contentions. One of the counsels appearing for Accused-7 claimed that his client had fulfilled his duties and acted within the scope of his official duty devoid of any malafide. Similarly the counsel appearing for acused-11 contended that the prosecution was flawed because the court did not determine and ascertain the specific contributions of each of the accused in the commission of conspiracy. The counsel standing on behalf of accused-4 further stated that some number of accused were being treated differently by the investigation bureau and accused 4 had no contribution in the disputed matter. Some other counsels were also of the view that the accused were deprived of the conclusions of the findings of the committee formed for investigation and thus the Submission of such report posed a procedural irregularity and thus no substantive base for the FIR could be found.[5]

On the contrary, the ASG of India, standing on behalf of the CBI sought to prove the specific contributions, role and involvement of each of the accused individuals in the commission of conspiracy.

REVISED JUDGMENT:

However the court was of the view that no prima facie conspiracy could have been recognized and ‘mens rea’ an essential component to constitute a crime was absent.It was also held by the court that the CBI failed to present concrete evidences to substantiate its allegations against the accused. Based on these inferences, the High Court Of Kerala granted Anticipatory Bail to the accused.[6]

This case Analysis has been written by Insha Pani, a student of National Law University Odisha and an intern under The Legal Vidhiya.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1. ISRO espionage case, Wikipedia (2023), https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ISRO_espionage_case&oldid=1182060305 (last visited Nov 9, 2023).

2. ^[1] Ashish Shaji, Prosecution Has Not Prima Facie Established Any Conspiracy: Kerala HC Grants Anticipatory Bail To Former Cops In ISRO Espionage Case, (2023),  https://www.verdictum.in/other-courts/kerala-hc-grants-anticipatory-bail-to-former-cops-isro-espionage-case-1458522

3.SCC Online

4. Abhimanyu Hazarika, ISRO Conspiracy Case: Supreme Court Sets aside Anticipatory Bail to 4 Accused; Directs Kerala High Court to Decide Matter Afresh, Bar and Bench – Indian Legal news (2022), https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/isro-conspiracy-case-supreme-court-sets-aside-anticipatory-bail-4-accused-kerala-high-court-decide-afresh (last visited Nov 13, 2023).

---

[1] ISRO espionage case, Wikipedia (2023), https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ISRO_espionage_case&oldid=1182060305 (last visited Nov 9, 2023).

[2] Ashish Shaji, Prosecution Has Not Prima Facie Established Any Conspiracy: Kerala HC Grants Anticipatory Bail To Former Cops In ISRO Espionage Case, (2023),  https://www.verdictum.in/other-courts/kerala-hc-grants-anticipatory-bail-to-former-cops-isro-espionage-case-1458522

[3] SCC Online® | The Surest Way To Legal Research, https://www.scconline.com/ (last visited Nov 13, 2023). https://scc-nluo.refread.com/Members/SearchResult.aspx

[4] Abhimanyu Hazarika, ISRO Conspiracy Case: Supreme Court Sets aside Anticipatory Bail to 4 Accused; Directs Kerala High Court to Decide Matter Afresh, Bar and Bench – Indian Legal news (2022), https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/isro-conspiracy-case-supreme-court-sets-aside-anticipatory-bail-4-accused-kerala-high-court-decide-afresh (last visited Nov 13, 2023).

[5] Shaji, supra note 2.

[6] ISRO espionage case, supra note 1.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.