Case Details: Harpreet Singh Talwar @ Kabir Talwar Versus State of Gujarat (2025) 30 Centax 267 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Surya Kant & Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.
- S/Shri Nipun Katyal, Surya Pratap Singh Rana & Manan Sharma, Advs. & Ms Rohini Musa, AOR, for the petitioner.
- Ms Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. S/Shri Rajat Nair, Ms Tanvi Dubey, Aaditya Shankar Dixit, Rajendra Singh Rana, Sarthak Karol & Ms Zeenat Malick, Advs. & Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR for the respondent.
Facts of the Case
The appellant-accused, allegedly acting as a central coordinator in an international narcotics smuggling operation, was arrested in connection with the illicit import of heroin camouflaged as semi-processed talc stones from Afghanistan into India. The import was executed in the name of multiple shell firms purportedly controlled or fronted by the accused, including one registered in the name of his employee. Investigations revealed that the accused had travelled to Dubai multiple times to meet with the principal foreign-based conspirator, finalising import arrangements and facilitating document transfers through intermediaries.
The imported goods, cleared without payment of Customs duty, were never paid for via legal remittance but instead bartered post-clearance through other entities allegedly controlled by the accused. Following search and seizure operations at the accused’s residence by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), including recovery of documents and an iPhone, a second supplementary chargesheet was filed under Sections 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 8(c), 21(c), 23(c), and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act); and Sections 17, 18, and 22C of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).
The accused has been in custody for over 33 months, and following rejection of his bail applications in the lower courts, the matter was brought before the Supreme Court for consideration of bail.
Supreme Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the denial of bail was justified in light of the serious and coordinated nature of the alleged narcotics smuggling operation involving foreign syndicates, use of shell companies, falsified documentation, and barter-based compensation. Despite no direct recovery of contraband from the appellant or his consignments, the Court found prima facie material to establish complicity, based on protected witness statements, telephonic records, travel history, financial structuring, and circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the principal conspirator. The Court observed that the scale of the operation, its transnational character, and its sophisticated execution elevated the offence beyond a routine NDPS case.
With two out of 24 key prosecution witnesses found dead—one being a retired Customs officer who died on the day his Section 164 CrPC statement was scheduled—and two others untraceable, the risk of witness tampering or elimination was deemed grave. While allegations of terror financing were found to lack concrete proof at this stage, the Court noted the accused’s prior Customs and DRI violations and international mobility as aggravating factors indicating potential flight risk. Consequently, bail was denied under Section 439 of the CrPC, read with the rigours of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, though liberty was granted to renew the bail application after six months or on substantial progress in trial, whichever occurred earlier.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Harpreet Singh Talwar @ Kabir Talwar v. State of Gujarat — R/Criminal Appeal (Regular Bail – After Charge-sheet) No. 1980 of 2023, decided on 28-3-2024 by Gujarat High Court — Affirmed [Paras 2, 18, 21, 35]
List of Cases Cited
- Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb — (2021) 3 SCC 713 — Relied on [Paras 24]
