Page 207 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

2020 ] SHIHABUDDIN THADATHALLI v. SR. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DRI, BANGALORE 189

scribed punishment is up to seven years or less. Thirdly, no incriminating evi-
dence has been available in proof of involvement of the petitioner in the alleged
offences.
4. None of these grounds, in my view, entitle the petitioner for his re-
lease on bail at this stage for the following reasons :-
The accusations made against the petitioner are serious in nature.
The matter is under investigation. It is premature to state that no incrim-
inating material is available in proof of the said offence. From the mate-
rial on record, it cannot be said that the petitioner is no way involved in
the alleged smuggling activity. In the objection statement, the respond-
ent has contended that the petitioner has been carrying on the smuggling
activity through WhatsApp conversation from his mobile phone num-
bers +971529175555 (Dubai Number) and 94400155555, with accused
No. 1 Shri N.T. Jamsheer. From his voluntary statement made on 18-2-
2020 and also from the Digital forensic analysis report, it is evident that
the petitioner is still in possession of both the mobile numbers stated
above and the respondent has gathered ample evidence viz., WhatsApp
chats, WhatsApp audio calls and other details shared by the petitioner
through the above said mobile to accused No. 1 Shri N.T. Jamsheer. It is
further contended that more incriminating data, evidence is suspected to
be stored in the above said two mobile phones, which is presently with
the petitioner and he is not cooperating to furnish the same to the re-
spondent to do the investigation smoothly. Hence there is every possibil-
ity of the petitioner damaging/destroying the digital/material evidence
if he is enlarged on bail. Respondent contends that, to safeguard the sen-
sitive evidence and to continue the efforts to trace the above said mobile
handsets, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.
5. Having regard to the above facts and as the investigating agency is
required to unearth the ramifications of the offences, release of the petitioner at
this stage is likely to hamper the investigation and hence, I am not inclined to
allow the petition.
6. Insofar as the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Suo Motu
Writ Petition (C) No. 1/2020 is concerned, the same does not help the petitioner.
By the said order, direction is issued to the State/Union territory to constitute a
High Powered Committee comprising of (i) Chairman of the State Legal Services
Committee, (ii) the Principal Secretary (Home/Prison) by whatever designation
is known as, (iii) Director General of Prison(s), to determine which class of pris-
oners can be released on parole or an interim bail for such period as may be
thought appropriate. For instance, the State/Union territory could consider the
release of prisoners who have been convicted or are undertrial for offences for
which prescribed punishment is up to 7 years or less, with or without fine and
the prisoner has been convicted for a lesser number of years than the maximum.
The said order does not furnish a ground for the petitioner to seek his release on
bail. In the said circumstances, I do not find any reason to allow the petition.
7. Petition is dismissed.

________

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  207