The Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment, held that the National Investigation Agency (NIA) is statutorily empowered to investigate offences not listed in the schedule to the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (NIA Act), provided that such offences are intrinsically connected with scheduled offences. The ruling, delivered by a bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and NK Singh, affirmed the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court cancelling the bail of an individual accused of involvement in a transnational drug trafficking operation concerning the smuggling of 500 kilograms of heroin. The Court underscored that custodial interrogation was indispensable to uncover the operational mechanisms of the accused and to trace the hawala channels facilitating the financial transactions of the criminal syndicate.

The case pertained to the operations of a cross-border organized crime syndicate that allegedly smuggled 500 kilograms of heroin from Pakistan into India through the sea route in Gujarat, with the consignment subsequently transported to Punjab for distribution. The NIA submitted that the accused was a principal associate of a wanted individual charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). It was alleged that the accused managed the drug cartel in Punjab and handled its financial operations through hawala channels, forming part of a larger conspiracy. The NIA contended that these offences were connected to scheduled offences and fell within its jurisdiction under Section 8 of the NIA Act.

The pivotal legal issue was whether the NIA could exercise jurisdiction over non-scheduled offences if they were substantively linked to scheduled offences under the NIA Act. The Court interpreted the provisions of Section 8, observing: “While investigating the accused of a scheduled offence, any other accused could also be investigated on the strength of Section 8 of the NIA Act, provided that the connection between the offences is established and requisite procedural conditions are fulfilled.” The Court outlined the following conditions that must be satisfied for the NIA to extend its jurisdiction to non-scheduled offences:

1. The NIA must determine that the additional accused is connected to the investigation of a scheduled offence.
2. A report detailing this connection must be submitted to the Central Government.
3. The Central Government must authorize the investigation of the non-scheduled offence under Section 5(6) read with Section 8 of the Act.
4. The investigation into the non-scheduled offence must be conducted jointly with the investigation into the scheduled offence to preserve procedural coherence.

The Court emphasized that the statutory framework of the NIA Act is designed to address the complex and interlinked nature of organized crimes. The judgment stated: “The legislative intent of the NIA Act ensures that procedural technicalities do not impede the investigation of offences that pose a threat to national security and public order. The Act provides a comprehensive mechanism to investigate interconnected offences effectively.”

The Court also expressed grave concerns regarding the societal implications of drug trafficking. In its observations, the bench highlighted the devastating impact of narcotics abuse, noting: “The proliferation of drugs erodes the social fabric, cutting across communities, age groups, and regions. Despite coordinated efforts by the State, the menace persists, with the proceeds of drug trafficking often used to fund terrorism and other acts of organized violence.” The judgment underscored the urgency of dismantling supply chains and identifying the sources of such illicit substances.

In its reasoning, the Court referred to its earlier decision in Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand, which held that the addition of cognizable and non-bailable offences post-grant of bail necessitates a re-evaluation of the bail order. The Court reaffirmed that custodial interrogation becomes essential in cases where subsequent offences emerge during the investigation. In the present case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had observed that custodial interrogation of the accused was necessary to dismantle the drug syndicate and identify its financial and operational networks. Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul, while cancelling the bail, noted: “The custodial interrogation of the respondent is imperative to uncover the extent of the conspiracy and to trace the channels of illegal financial transactions. The severity of the allegations necessitates a thorough and effective investigation.”

The Supreme Court endorsed this view, observing that the transnational ramifications of the case necessitated a comprehensive approach. The bench stated: “The meticulous planning and coordination of this cross-border syndicate underline the need for an uninterrupted investigation to reach the logical conclusion of the case and ensure accountability for grave offences.” The decision to cancel the bail was deemed necessary to facilitate the investigation and safeguard the integrity of the proceedings.

By holding that the NIA’s investigative mandate extends to unscheduled offences connected with scheduled offences, the judgment clarifies the statutory provisions under the NIA Act and reinforces the agency’s ability to conduct integrated investigations into complex criminal activities.

Case Title: ANKUSH VIPAN KAPOOR v NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

Case No: SLP(Crl) No. 2819/2024

Bench: Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice NK Singh