Supreme Court refuses regular bail in multi‑jurisdictional heroin smuggling case; allows bail plea to be renewed after six months

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh heard the appeal by Harpreet Singh Talwar @ Kabir Talwar against the Gujarat High Court's refusal to grant regular bail in an FIR registered by the National Investigation Agency arising out of a large‑scale narcotics smuggling operation. The appeal concerned whether the statutory bar under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the cumulative prosecution material warranted continued custody of the accused, whose trial before the Special Court (NIA), Ahmedabad was at the stage of prosecution witnesses.

The Court dismissed the appeal and declined to enlarge the appellant on regular bail, holding that the prosecution had made out a prima facie case of conspiracy and facilitation notwithstanding the absence of direct recovery of contraband from the appellant’s consignment. The Court emphasised the applicable standard under UAPA, observing that "the degree of satisfaction required under this provision has to be lower than the proof beyond reasonable doubt, but must still be rooted in material that is not inherently improbable or ex facie unreliable." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "We say so for the reason that despite no direct recovery of contraband effected from the Appellant, the Prosecution’s case is that he played a coordinating and enabling role in facilitating the import of narcotics concealed as talc through M/s Magent India which he allegedly controlled through a proxy. The consignment, although not seized with heroin, shares structural and logistical similarities with those where heroin was ultimately found." The bench made clear that it expressed no opinion on the merits and permitted renewal of the bail application after six months or upon substantial progress in the trial.

Background
The dispute arose from investigations into a transnational narcotics smuggling network led allegedly by Afghan‑based syndicates that concealed heroin in commercial consignments routed through Bandar Abbas and Mundra Port. The DRI initially registered a case after the seizure of approximately 2,988.21 kg of heroin; the matter was later taken over by the NIA and an FIR dated 23.09.2022 (RC‑26/2021/NIA/DLI) was registered. The appellant, arraigned as Accused No. 24, was arrested on 24.08.2022 and charged under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 23(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, Sections 17, 18 and 22C of the UAPA and Section 120B IPC. The NIA alleged that the appellant orchestrated the import of a consignment declared as talc via a proprietorship M/s Magent India, controlled through proxies, and coordinated with a foreign accused, Vityash Koser @ Raju Dubai.

At trial the prosecution relied on statements of protected witnesses, call data records, documentary material and a supplementary chargesheet which named the appellant. The Special Court denied bail in July 2023, finding a prima facie case of conspiracy; the High Court dismissed the bail petition on 28.03.2024, applying Section 43D(5) UAPA. Before this Court the appellant contended that accusations rested on circumstantial material, that no witness had yet implicated him conclusively, and that his consignment had undergone 100% examination by Customs without seizure. The State/NIA argued that the appellant was a key facilitator in several consignments forming a large smuggling architecture, that witnesses remained vulnerable or unexamined (24 were identified as material), and that risks of witness tampering and flight persisted.

The Supreme Court noted the scale and sophistication of the operation, the existence of alleged fabrication of documents and barter‑style payments, the deaths and untraceability of certain witnesses, and antecedent customs proceedings against the appellant. In view of the cumulative material the Court concluded that the appellant had not shown entitlement to regular bail at this stage. The Court directed the NIA to furnish additional lists of sensitive witnesses, instructed the Special Court to list the matter twice a month and record prosecution evidence continuously, and requested prompt posting of the Presiding Officer if not already done.

Case Details:
Case No.: 2025 INSC 662
Case Title: Harpreet Singh Talwar @ Kabir Talwar v. The State of Gujarat through National Investigating Agency
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr C. A. Sundaram (Senior Counsel), Mr Siddharth Bhatnagar (Senior Counsel), Dr Aditya Sondhi (Senior Counsel)
For the Respondent(s): Ms Aishwarya Bhati (Additional Solicitor General)