13 May 2025 Drugs >> Criminal Law   |   Investigation >> Criminal Law  

The Supreme Court of India has upheld the Gujarat High Court's decision to deny regular bail to Harpreet Singh Talwar, alias Kabir Talwar (Accused No. 24), who is currently in custody in connection with a large-scale international narcotics smuggling operation. The case, being investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), involves the illicit import of substantial quantities of heroin into India disguised as commercial consignments.

Talwar has been in custody since August 24, 2022, facing serious charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The trial is currently ongoing before the Special NIA Court in Ahmedabad.

Allegations of a Central Role in a Transnational Scheme:

According to the NIA, Talwar played a crucial coordinating role in facilitating the import of a consignment of heroin-laced talc stones in December 2020 through Mundra Port, Gujarat. This was allegedly done under the guise of a firm named M/s Magent India, which the prosecution claims was under Talwar's effective control, managed through a proxy employee.

The investigation traces back to a seizure of nearly 3,000 kg of heroin in early 2021 by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), originating from Afghanistan and routed through Iran. The NIA's expanded investigation led to the implication of Talwar, who is alleged to have met with Vityash Koser, alias Raju Dubai, a foreign national suspected to be at the helm of a transnational heroin smuggling network, in Dubai in September 2020. This meeting purportedly laid the groundwork for the criminal conspiracy to import heroin under legitimate commercial covers.

The prosecution's case against Talwar, despite no direct recovery of contraband from the specific consignment linked to him, relies on several key aspects:

• His alleged meetings with the principal foreign accused in Dubai.
• The creation and control of M/s Magent India as a front company.
• The transfer of import documents through intermediaries for consignment clearance.
• Attempts to retrospectively fabricate invoices and assign responsibility to others when enforcement agencies began probing similar consignments.
• The alleged use of multiple firms connected to him to obscure the true nature of transactions.
• Telephonic communications with co-conspirators.

Court's Reasoning for Denying Bail:

The Supreme Court, while acknowledging that pretrial incarceration should not be punitive, concluded that Talwar had not made a case for regular bail at this stage. The Court particularly emphasized the stringent provisions of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which places a high bar for granting bail if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusation against the person is prima facie true.

Key factors influencing the Court's decision included:

• Prima Facie Complicity: The collective evidence presented by the prosecution, including witness statements and circumstantial linkages, met the threshold for establishing a prima facie case of Talwar's involvement in the conspiracy and facilitation of narcotics import.
• Nature and Scale of Offence: The Court highlighted the gravity of the charges, the alleged scale of the operation (valued at over INR 21,000 crores as part of one of India's largest heroin busts), and its links to organized crime and public health degradation.
• Witness Safety Concerns: A significant concern for the Court was the risk of witness tampering or elimination. Out of 24 vulnerable or material witnesses identified by the NIA, two have unfortunately died (one on the day he was to record a judicial statement), and two others remain untraceable.
• Ongoing Investigation and Absconding Accused: The fact that several key witnesses are yet to be examined, and primary foreign conspirators remain absconding, further weighed against granting bail.
• Criminal Antecedents: While not directly related to NDPS, Talwar's prior involvement in customs proceedings and smuggling cases was considered relevant for evaluating his propensity to interfere with the justice process.

Future Course of Action:

The Supreme Court clarified that its order should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. While denying bail at this juncture, the Court granted Talwar the liberty to renew his plea for regular bail after a period of six months or upon substantial advancement in the trial, whichever is earlier.

To expedite the trial, the Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The NIA is to submit an additional list of sensitive or material witnesses to the Special Court.
• The Special Court is directed to list the matter twice a month and record prosecution witness statements continuously.
• The Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court is requested to ensure the posting of a Presiding Officer to the Special Court within a week if the position is currently vacant.

The Court also clarified that, at this stage, it would be premature and speculative to link the allegations against Talwar to terror financing, emphasizing that such grave allegations require clear and compelling evidentiary foundation, which can only be assessed after a substantial portion of evidence is led.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985  

Indian Penal Code, 1860  

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967