Supreme Court Declines Bail In ₹21,000 Crore Heroin Smuggling Case | Finds Prima Facie Evidence Of Conspiracy | Says It Is Premature To Link Accused To Terror Financing
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India, Division Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, has declined the application for regular bail filed by an accused charged under multiple provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The apex court further issued explicit directions to ensure the expeditious completion of the ongoing trial before the Special Court (NIA), Ahmedabad.
The Appellant, arraigned as Accused No. 24, is currently in judicial custody since 24.08.2022. The case arises from investigations into a multi-jurisdictional narcotics smuggling operation, allegedly executed by Afghan-based syndicates with domestic operatives, wherein substantial quantities of heroin were illicitly brought into India under the cover of commercial consignments.
The Appellant’s alleged role involved the facilitation of a consignment of heroin-laced talc stones imported in December 2020 through Mundra Port, Gujarat, under the cover of a firm named M/s Magent India. As per the Prosecution, the Appellant maintained long-standing associations with individuals engaged in illicit international trade. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) registered Case No. DRI/AZU/GRU/NDPS-01/2021 concerning the seizure of 2,988.21 kg of heroin, allegedly originating from Afghanistan and routed through Iran.
Following intelligence inputs and parallel investigations, the case was transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), which registered an FIR on 06.10.2021 under the NDPS Act and UAPA. The Appellant allegedly undertook two visits to Dubai in 2020 and met a foreign national, identified as Vityash Koser alias Raju Dubai, alleged to be at the helm of a transnational heroin smuggling network. The Appellant is stated to have instructed his accountant to establish M/s Magent India through a domestic aide, Prince Sharma (A-25), which remained under his effective control.
A consignment of 21,880 kilograms of semi-processed talc stones was dispatched on 16.11.2020 from Afghanistan and arrived at Mundra Port on 23.12.2020. Though the consignment was subjected to 100% inspection, it was cleared by Customs authorities. The NIA alleges that no monetary remittance was made by M/s Magent India to the Afghan supplier; instead, the Appellant allegedly received barter compensation in the form of perfumes, dry fruits, and footwear through entities he controlled.
When enforcement agencies commenced investigations into similar consignments in early 2021, the Appellant allegedly convened a meeting to fabricate backdated documents assigning responsibility to other individuals. Subsequently, the Appellant’s residence was searched on 24.08.2022, resulting in the seizure of several documents and an iPhone allegedly used during the relevant period.
The Appellant was not named in the first charge sheet filed on 14.03.2022 but was formally included in the second supplementary charge sheet filed on 20.02.2023. He faces charges 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 of the IPC.
The Appellant’s applications for regular bail were earlier dismissed by the Special Court and the High Court of Gujarat. The High Court, in its order dated 28.03.2024, held that the statutory bar under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA applied and noted the potential for the Appellant to influence the ongoing investigation and trial.
The Supreme Court recorded that the accusations against the Appellant were primarily based on circumstantial material. However, the Court observed, "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 Court noted that the consignment, although not seized with heroin, shared structural and logistical similarities with those where heroin was ultimately found.
It was further observed, "the Appellant’s meetings in Dubai with a principal foreign accused; the transfer of documents through intermediaries; efforts to fabricate invoices; the use of multiple firms to obfuscate transactions; and his telephonic communications with co-conspirators, currently meet the threshold of prima facie satisfaction regarding the Appellant’s complicity."
The Court referred to the rigour of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA and clarified, "the absence of direct seizure is not dispositive, particularly where there exists a pattern of covert coordination, fictitious entities, and barter-based compensation."
Noting the gravity of the charges and societal implications, the Court stated, "the Appellant faces serious charges, which allegedly carry grave societal ramifications, including the facilitation of cross-border drug trafficking—an offence with well-documented links to organised crime and public health degradation."
The Court also expressed concerns regarding witness safety, stating, "out of 24 most vulnerable or material witnesses, two have died, and two others are untraceable. One of the deceased witnesses, a retired Customs Officer, was found dead on the very day he was scheduled to record his statement under Section 164 CrPC."
The Court held that "the risk of witness tampering or elimination—whether directly attributable to the Appellant or not—is a real and present concern that militates against the grant of bail at this stage."
While acknowledging that the Appellant had been in custody since 24.08.2022, the Court concluded that the duration alone did not warrant bail under the present circumstances.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with the following directions:
- The Appellant may renew his plea for regular bail after six months or upon substantial advancement of the trial, whichever is earlier.
- The NIA shall submit to the Special Court an additional list of witnesses who are sensitive or material, having a direct bearing on the role of the Appellant or co-accused.
- The Special Court is directed to list the matter twice a month and record the statements of Prosecution witnesses continuously and without interruption.
- The Chief Justice of the High Court of Gujarat is requested to ensure that the Presiding Officer of the Special Court is posted within a week if not already in place.
The Court clarified that the present order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and shall not prejudice the trial proceedings.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: C. A. Sundaram, Siddharth Bhatnagar, Dr Aditya Sondhi (Senior Counsel)
For the Respondent (State of Gujarat / NIA): Aishwarya Bhati (Additional Solicitor General)
Case Title: Harpreet Singh Talwar @ Kabir Talwar versus The State of Gujarat th. National Investigating Agency
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 662
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. ____/2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8878/2024)
Bench: Justice Surya Kant, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
[Read/Download order]
