Supreme Court denies bail in narcotics smuggling case involving UAPA: Harpreet Singh Talwar vs. State of Gujarat (2025)

Date of the Judgment: May 13, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 662
Judges: Surya Kant, J. and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.

Can an individual accused of facilitating narcotics smuggling be denied bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) even without direct evidence of possessing contraband? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in the case of Harpreet Singh Talwar @ Kabir Talwar vs. The State of Gujarat th. National Investigating Agency, concerning allegations of narcotics smuggling with links to Afghan-based syndicates. The court examined the role of the accused in allegedly facilitating the import of heroin and considered whether the stringent conditions for bail under the UAPA were met.

In a judgment delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for bail, citing concerns over witness safety and the ongoing investigation into a large-scale narcotics smuggling operation.

Case Background

The case originated from an FIR registered by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) concerning a multi-jurisdictional narcotics smuggling operation. The appellant, Harpreet Singh Talwar, was accused of playing a central role in facilitating a consignment of heroin-laced talc stones imported into India in December 2020 through Mundra Port, Gujarat, under the cover of a firm named M/s Magent India.

The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) initially registered a case following the seizure of 2,988.21 kg of heroin, allegedly originating from Afghanistan and routed through Bandar Abbas, Iran. The narcotics were concealed as talc powder in a consignment addressed to M/s Aashi Trading Company. The NIA later took over the case and discovered the appellant’s alleged involvement in similar cross-border smuggling activities.

The NIA alleged that in September 2020, the appellant visited Dubai and was introduced to Vityash Koser @ Raju Dubai, an individual alleged to be at the helm of a transnational heroin smuggling network. Following this meeting, the appellant allegedly agreed to facilitate the import of heroin into India under the guise of legitimate commercial goods. He instructed his accountant to register a proprietorship concern, M/s Magent India, in the name of his employee, Prince Sharma.

A consignment of 22 bags of semi-processed talc was dispatched from Afghanistan and arrived at Mundra Port on December 23, 2020, consigned to M/s Magent India. The NIA alleged that the appellant received perfumes, dry fruits, and footwear as barter compensation through other firms controlled by him, without any customs duty being paid.

The appellant’s residence was searched on August 24, 2022, and he was taken into custody. A supplementary charge sheet was filed on February 20, 2023, formally naming the appellant as an accused under the NDPS Act, UAPA, and IPC.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant initially moved an application for regular bail before the Special Court, which was declined on July 30, 2023. The Special Court cited the magnitude of the offence, the transnational nature of the smuggling operation, and the possibility of the appellant influencing the ongoing investigation and trial.

The appellant then approached the High Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). However, the High Court dismissed the appellant’s regular bail application on March 28, 2024, holding that the statutory bar under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA was attracted in the facts of the case.

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions, including:

• Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act): This section prohibits the production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transportation, warehousing, concealment, use, or consumption of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, except for medical or scientific purposes and as per the provisions of the Act.
• Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act: This section prescribes the punishment for contravention in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations where the contravention involves a quantity exceeding the specified small quantity but less than the commercial quantity.
• Section 23(c) of the NDPS Act: This section deals with illegal import into India, export from India, or transshipment of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
• Section 29 of the NDPS Act: This section addresses abetment and criminal conspiracy related to offences under the NDPS Act.
• Sections 17, 18, and 22C of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA): These sections pertain to raising funds for terrorist acts, punishment for conspiracy, etc., and prohibition of certain activities prejudicial to the security of India.
• Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines and punishes criminal conspiracy.
• Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section grants the High Court and Court of Session the power to grant bail.
• Section 43D(5) of the UAPA: This section imposes restrictions on granting bail to persons accused of offences under the UAPA.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellant:

• The accusations against the appellant rest solely on circumstantial material, with no direct evidence.
• None of the 20 vulnerable witnesses examined implicated the appellant in any manner.
• The consignment associated with the appellant was declared as semi-processed talc stones and was duly cleared by Customs after 100% inspection.
• The prosecution’s theory of guilt is constructed in hindsight, relying on a later consignment found nearly one year after the appellant’s import.
• The appellant cannot be held vicariously liable for material found in a warehouse long after his consignment was cleared.
• The allegations of a barter-style quid pro quo involving imported goods remain unsubstantiated.
• The allegation of five telephonic calls between the appellant and co-accused Raju Dubai is insufficient to establish criminal conspiracy.
• No extradition proceedings have been initiated against Raju Dubai, and the primary actors remain absconding.
• The appellant’s business is Delhi-based and has been operating in the import-export sector for over 15 years, with no prior convictions.
• The appellant has been in judicial custody since August 24, 2022, and prolonged preventive detention violates his rights to liberty and dignity.

Arguments by the Respondent (State of Gujarat/NIA):

• The appellant was a key facilitator in some of the six major consignments, which collectively formed one of the largest heroin seizures in Indian history.
• M/s Magent India was a front company created by the appellant immediately after his first meeting with Raju Dubai.
• Although no contraband was recovered from the appellant’s consignment, the absence of physical recovery is not fatal to the case of criminal conspiracy.
• The death of a key witness under suspicious circumstances and the fact that two critical witnesses remain untraceable indicate the risk of witness elimination or influence.
• The court has already declined bail to similarly placed co-accused, and no mitigating circumstance warrants a different conclusion in the present case.
• Charges have since been framed in the ongoing trial, with several key witnesses already being examined.
• The appellant is a habitual economic offender, with antecedents involving smuggling and customs violations.
• The serious nature of the offences alleged against the appellant and their direct detrimental effect on the security of the nation necessitate that the appellant should not be afforded bail.

Submissions Categorized by Main Arguments

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the appellant should be granted regular bail, considering the allegations against him under the NDPS Act and UAPA.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”

Authorities

The court considered the following authorities:

• Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited to emphasize that the rigour of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA would yield to the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution, especially where the trial is inordinately delayed or where the incarceration becomes punitive.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for bail, stating that the appellant had not been able to make out a case for grant of regular bail at this stage.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713: The Court acknowledged the principle that pre-trial incarceration should not translate into punitive detention, but found that the circumstances of the case did not warrant bail at this stage.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to deny bail to Harpreet Singh Talwar was influenced by several factors. The Court considered the seriousness of the charges against the appellant, the potential societal ramifications of cross-border drug trafficking, and the ongoing nature of the trial. The Court also took into account the risk of witness tampering or elimination, as well as the appellant’s criminal antecedents.

The Court emphasized that the prosecution’s case was based on conspiracy and facilitation, rather than direct recovery of narcotics from the appellant. The Court found that the appellant’s alleged meetings in Dubai, the transfer of documents through intermediaries, efforts to fabricate invoices, the use of multiple firms, and telephonic calls to co-conspirators met the threshold of prima facie satisfaction regarding the appellant’s complicity.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• In cases of narcotics smuggling, the absence of direct recovery of contraband from the accused is not dispositive if there is evidence of conspiracy and facilitation.
• The courts consider the risk of witness tampering and the accused’s criminal antecedents when deciding on bail applications.
• Prolonged pre-trial incarceration should not translate into punitive detention, but the rigours of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA must also be considered.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. The appellant shall be at liberty to renew his plea for regular bail after a period of 6 months, or at a stage where the ongoing trial has progressed substantially.
2. The NIA is directed to submit to the Special Court an additional list of witnesses who are sensitive or material.
3. The Special Court is directed to list the matter twice in a month and record the statements of Prosecution witnesses on a continuous and uninterrupted basis.
4. If the Presiding Officer of the Special Court has not been posted thus far, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court of Gujarat is requested to do the needful within a week.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court reiterated that while pre-trial incarceration should not be punitive, the stringent conditions for bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA must be considered. The Court also clarified that the absence of direct recovery of contraband is not dispositive in cases of conspiracy and facilitation of narcotics smuggling.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for bail filed by Harpreet Singh Talwar, accused of facilitating narcotics smuggling. The Court cited concerns over the appellant’s coordinating role, similarities between the appellant’s consignment and those where heroin was found, risk of witness tampering, and the ongoing nature of the trial. The Court allowed the appellant to renew his plea for bail after six months or upon substantial advancement in the trial.