Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: smuggling in Harpreet Singh Talwar @ Kabir Talwar vs The State Of Gujarat on 13 May, 2025Matching Fragments
SURYA KANT, J.
Leave granted.
2. The Appellant assails the order dated 28.03.2024 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad (High Court) whereby his prayer for regular bail in connection with FIR No. RC-26/2021/NIA/DLI dated 23.09.2022 (FIR) registered by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), has been declined.
3. The aforesaid FIR arises from investigations into a multi-jurisdictional narcotics smuggling operation allegedly executed by Afghan-based syndicates, with links to domestic operatives, wherein substantial SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date: 2025.05.13 15:46:03 IST Reason:
7. The offence came to light when the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Gandhidham Unit, registered Case No. DRI/AZU/GRU/NDPS- 01/2021 under the NDPS Act. That case pertains to the seizure of 2,988.21 kg of heroin, allegedly originating from Afghanistan and routed through Bandar Abbas, Iran. The narcotics were smuggled into India concealed as talc powder in a consignment addressed to one M/s Aashi Trading Company.
8. Based on intelligence inputs and parallel investigations by customs authorities and the DRI, the case was eventually taken over by the NIA. An FIR was registered on 06.10.2021, under the NDPS Act and UAPA. Due to the spread and magnitude of the alleged offence, investigative efforts were escalated, which led to the NIA discovering involvement of the Appellant in similar cross-border smuggling of narcotics.
9. NIA thus alleges that in September 2020, the Appellant undertook a visit to Dubai, where he was introduced through one Sunny Kakkar to Vityash Koser @ Raju Dubai, a foreign national and a designated accused (WA-7) alleged to be at the helm of a transnational heroin smuggling network.
10. This initial meeting, as per statements recorded under the NDPS Act and UAPA by protected witnesses, laid the foundation for a ‘criminal conspiracy’ wherein the Appellant agreed to facilitate the import of heroin into India under the guise of legitimate commercial goods. In furtherance of this arrangement, the Appellant is stated to have instructed his accountant, Sunil Jain, to arrange for the registration of a proprietorship concern in the name of his employee and domestic aide, one Prince Sharma (A-25). This entity—M/s Magent India—was registered on 22.09.2020, and according to the Prosecution, remained under the effective control of the Appellant.
17. The Appellant first moved an application for regular bail before the Special Court, which was declined vide order dated 30.07.2023, holding that the material on record disclosed a prima facie case of conspiracy under the NDPS Act and UAPA. The Special Court also took note of the magnitude of the offence, the transnational nature of the smuggling operation, and the possibility of the Appellant influencing the course of the ongoing investigation and trial.
18. The aggrieved Appellant then approached the High Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). However, by a reasoned order dated 28.03.2024, the High Court similarly dismissed the Appellant’s regular bail application holding that the statutory bar under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA was attracted in the facts of this case. It further observed that the role attributed to the Appellant, viewed cumulatively with the nature of the conspiracy and the statements of key witnesses, warranted continued custody at that stage.