HARPREET SINGH TALWAR @ KABIR TALWARversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT TH. NATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY

                 [2025] 6 S.C.R. 291 : 2025 INSC 662

           Harpreet Singh Talwar @ Kabir Talwar
                               v.
    The State of Gujarat th. National Investigating Agency
                    (Criminal Appeal No. 2570 of 2025)
                                 13 May 2025
    [Surya Kant* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant
       is entitled for regular bail.

                                  Headnotes†
       Bail – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 –
       ss.8(c), 21(c), 23(c), 29 – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
       1967 – ss.17, 18, 22C – Penal Code, 1860 – s.120B – Cross-
       border smuggling of narcotics – Seizure of 2,988.21 kg heroin-
       laced talc stones imported into India through Gujarat, under
       the cover of commercial consignments, allegedly originating
       from Afghanistan and routed through Iran – Appellant allegedly
       played a central and coordinating role in its facilitation – Bail
       denied:
       Held: Appellant’s alleged meetings in Dubai with a principal foreign
       accused; the transfer of documents through intermediaries for
       the clearance of a flagged consignment; efforts to retrospectively
       fabricate invoices and assign responsibility to others; use of
       multiple firms allegedly connected to him to obfuscate the true
       nature of the transactions; and his telephonic calls to certain co-
       conspirators, supported by the statements of protected witnesses
       and circumstantial linkages, meet the threshold of prima facie
       satisfaction regarding the appellant’s complicity – Prosecution
       claims that the seizure in the connected consignment is part of
       the largest heroin bust in Indian history – Trial is ongoing before
       the NIA Court and is at the stage of examination of Prosecution
       witnesses – Multiple key witnesses are yet to be examined – Out
       of 24 most vulnerable or material witnesses, two have died and
       two others are untraceable – The risk of witness tampering or



* Author
292                                                               [2025] 6 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       elimination militates against the grant of bail at this stage – Also, in
       view of the appellant’s prior conduct and profile there is a possibility
       of flight risk – Appellant not entitled to regular bail at this stage.
       [Paras 27, 29, 30, 32, 35]
       Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – s.43D(5) – Scope
       and application – Constitution of India – Article 21 – Discussed.
       [Paras 23, 24]

                                 Case Law Cited
       Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb [2021] 1 SCR 443 : (2021) 3 SCC
       713 – referred to.

                                    List of Acts
       Constitution of India; Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
       Act, 1985.

                                List of Keywords
       Seizure of 2,988.21 kg heroin-laced talc stones; Narcotics
       concealed as talc powder; Multi-jurisdictional narcotics smuggling
       operation; Cross-border smuggling of narcotics; Trans-national
       heroin smuggling network; Mundra Port, Gujarat; Afghan-based
       syndicates; Iran; Criminal conspiracy; Transnational smuggling
       operation; Regular bail; Import of narcotics concealed as talc;
       Cross-border drug trafficking; Import of heroin into India; Terror
       financing; Flight risk.

                               Case Arising From
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
       2570 of 2025
       From the Judgment and Order dated 28.03.2024 of the High Court
       of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in CRA No. 1980 of 2023

                            Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant:
       C.A. Sundaram, Siddharth Bhatnagar, Dr. Aditya Sondhi,
       Sr. Advs., Nipun Katyal, Namboodiri Prasanna, Dhananjay Kumar,
       Nadeem Afroz, Manan Sharma, Ms. Rohini Musa, Rijuk Sarkar,
       Ms. Nidhishree B V.
[2025] 6 S.C.R.                                                         293

               Harpreet Singh Talwar @ Kabir Talwar v.
         The State of Gujarat th. National Investigating Agency

     Advs. for the Respondent:
     Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., Ms. Radhika Misra, Ms. Shivika
     Mehera, Rajat Nair, Sandeep K. Sadawarte, Ms. Zeenat Malick,
     Ms. Tanvi Dubey, Aaditya Shankar Dixit, Rajendra Singh Rana,
     Sarthak Karol, Arvind Kumar Sharma.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                  Order

     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
     quantities of heroin were illicitly brought into India under the cover
     of commercial consignments.
4.   The Appellant herein is arraigned as Accused No. 24 in the said case
     and is currently in custody since 24.08.2022. The offences alleged
     against him include those under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 23(c), and 29
     of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS
     Act), Sections 17, 18, and 22C of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
     Act, 1967 (UAPA), and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code,
     1860 (IPC). The trial is currently ongoing before the Special Court
     (NIA), Ahmedabad (NIA Court), and is at the stage of examination
     of Prosecution witnesses.
5.   Before delving into the merits of this case, we may briefly advert to
     the factual matrix vis-à-vis the Appellant, i.e. Harpreet Singh Talwar
     @ Kabir Talwar.
6.   The gravamen of the allegations against the Appellant is that he played
     a central and coordinating role in the facilitation of a consignment of
     heroin-laced talc stones imported into India in December 2020 through
294                                                         [2025] 6 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       Mundra Port, Gujarat, under the cover of a firm named M/s Magent
       India. According to the Prosecution, the Appellant’s involvement in
       the present offence must be understood in the context of his long-
       standing associations with entities and individuals engaged in illicit
       international trade.
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.
11. Thereafter, the Appellant is alleged to have travelled to Dubai a
    second time, wherein he finalized the modalities of the import with
    Raju Dubai. Soon after, a consignment of 22 bags of semi-processed
[2025] 6 S.C.R.                                                        295

               Harpreet Singh Talwar @ Kabir Talwar v.
         The State of Gujarat th. National Investigating Agency

     talc weighing 21,880 kilograms was dispatched on 16.11.2020 by
     M/s Habib Shabab Talc & Marble Processing Co. Ltd., Afghanistan,
     and routed through Bandar Abbas Port, Iran, consigned to M/s
     Magent India.
12. The consignment arrived at Mundra Port, Gujarat on 23.12.2020,
    via Bill of Entry No. 2083348. Around this time, Amit Sharma,
    described as a known associate of Raju Dubai, is said to have
    visited the Appellant’s office at East Patel Nagar, New Delhi. As per
    the statements of Sunil Jain and protected witnesses, Amit Sharma
    was handed over the firm’s import documents, including GST and
    IEC credentials, under direct instructions from the Appellant. The
    clearance of the consignment was subsequently completed, although
    it was marked for 100% examination.
13. Importantly, no remittance was made by M/s Magent India to the
    Afghan supplier. Instead, the NIA alleges that the Appellant received
    perfumes, dry fruits, and footwear as barter compensation through
    other firms controlled by him. The goods were allegedly routed via
    Dubai, without any customs duty being paid, and were disposed of
    through entities that shared direct or indirect ownership links with
    the Appellant.
14. When the enforcement agencies began probing similar consignments
    in early 2021, the Appellant is said to have convened a meeting in
    his office, attended by Prince Sharma and Amit Sharma. According
    to one of the protected witnesses, the Appellant asked Amit Sharma
    to sign a backdated ‘Authorization Letter’ accepting responsibility for
    the consignment, which was refused. Subsequently, the Appellant
    directed that fictitious invoices be raised to show sale of the goods to
    M/s Prabh International, a company associated with his wife, Shaily
    Talwar. However, no actual movement of goods ever took place; the
    transaction was confined to papers only.
15. The Appellant’s residence was searched on 24.08.2022, by the NIA,
    and several items were seized including property documents, import-
    export records, and an iPhone 13 Pro allegedly used during the
    relevant period. He was also taken into custody on the same date.
    Subsequent forensic examination of call detail records confirmed
    that during the clearance of the consignment at Mundra, there was
    simultaneous contact between the Appellant, Amit Sharma, and
    Raju Dubai, who were located within the same mobile tower zone.
296                                                          [2025] 6 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


16. In the first charge sheet filed on 14.03.2022, the Appellant was not
    named as an accused. However, a second supplementary charge
    sheet was subsequently filed on 20.02.2023, formally naming the
    Appellant as Accused No. 24. He was charged under Sections 120B
    of the IPC, 8(c), 21(c), 23(c), 29 of the NDPS Act and Sections 17,
    18, 22C of the UAPA. The Prosecution also cited multiple protected
    witness statements, including those former employees and associates
    who allegedly corroborated the Appellant’s role in the formation
    and control of Magent India, namely, the logistics of import, and the
    subsequent efforts to create a paper trail for concealment.
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.
19. Consequently, the Appellant is before this Court. Upon issuance
    of notice on 12.07.2024, this Court has from time to time sought
    to facilitate the expeditious conduct of the ongoing trial, solely for
    the purpose of enabling a proper and informed consideration of the
    Appellant’s prayer for bail on merits. In that context, directions were
    issued to NIA to furnish a list of vulnerable and material witnesses,
    whose testimony was considered essential at this stage. Pursuant
    to such directions, the NIA identified 24 such witnesses, of whom 20
    have since been examined, while two have unfortunately expired, and
    the remaining two are untraceable despite the Agency’s stated efforts.
20. Having touched upon the limited facts and circumstances that are
    relevant for our consideration, we presently deem it fit to also elucidate
    the contentions tendered on behalf of both the parties.
[2025] 6 S.C.R.                                                            297

                  Harpreet Singh Talwar @ Kabir Talwar v.
            The State of Gujarat th. National Investigating Agency

21. Mr C. A. Sundaram, Mr Siddharth Bhatnagar, and Dr Aditya Sondhi,
    learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant
    have proffered several submissions against the correctness of the
    impugned order in denying bail to the Appellant:
     (i)     the accusations against the Appellant rest solely on circumstantial
             material, and no direct, primary, or even credible indirect
             evidence has been adduced against him over the course of
             investigation or trial proceedings so far;
     (ii)    while 20 vulnerable witnesses have already been examined,
             not one of them has implicated the Appellant in any manner,
             and no evidence has emerged linking him to any consignment
             that was actually found to contain contraband;
     (iii) the only consignment associated with the Appellant was imported
           through M/s Magent India, received on 23.12.2020, declared
           as semi-processed talc stones originating from Afghanistan,
           and duly cleared by Customs after being subjected to 100%
           inspection, as per the statement of Customs Officer (PW10);
     (iv) the prosecution’s theory of guilt is constructed in hindsight on
          the basis of ‘reverse engineering’, relying on a later consignment
          found in September 2021, nearly one year after the Appellant’s
          import, which was recovered from a warehouse allegedly linked
          to a different accused;
     (v)     the Appellant cannot be held vicariously liable for material
             found in a warehouse long after his consignment was cleared,
             particularly when other importers who used the same channel
             or warehouse were not proceeded against, such as M/s Vyom
             Fashion and M/s VK Enterprises;
     (vi) the allegations of a barter-style quid pro quo involving imported
          goods like perfumes and dry fruits remain unsubstantiated,
          and the relevant witness (X3) admitted that the exchange of
          goods was limited to documentation and that the products
          never actually arrived;
     (vii) the allegation of five telephonic calls between the Appellant
           and co-accused Raju Dubai is insufficient to establish criminal
           conspiracy as while his purported interaction with Raju Dubai
           may reflect bad judgment, it cannot automatically translate to
           culpability, especially when no forensic link or recovery connects
           him to heroin;
298                                                             [2025] 6 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       (viii) more pressingly, no extradition proceedings have been
              initiated against the said foreign national (Raju Dubai), and
              the primary actors who allegedly exercised real control over
              the consignments still remain absconding;
       (ix) the Appellant’s business is Delhi-based and has been operating
            in the import-export sector for over 15 years, and he has no
            prior convictions under the NDPS Act or UAPA—thus proving
            that he is not a flight risk;
       (x)    the Appellant has been in judicial custody since 24.08.2022,
              and prolonged preventive detention runs afoul of his rights to
              liberty and dignity.
22. In stark contrast, Ms Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor
    General appearing on behalf of the State of Gujarat/NIA seeks to
    vociferously contest the prayer for grant of bail to the Appellant. To
    that end, she canvassed the following submissions:
       (i)    the Appellant was not merely an incidental actor but a key
              facilitator in some of the six major consignments, which
              collectively formed the architecture of what has since been
              recognised as one of the largest heroin seizures in Indian history,
              with a market value exceeding INR 21,000 crores;
       (ii)   M/s Magent India was a front company created by the Appellant
              immediately after his first meeting with Raju Dubai in September
              2020. The consignment imported in December 2020 under the
              Appellant’s instructions shares a direct operational pattern with
              the later consignment seized in September 2021; thus, all six
              consignments bore similar hallmarks of subterfuge and were
              routed via shell firms, using Afghan-origin talc to mask the
              smuggling of heroin;
       (iii) although no contraband was recovered from the Appellant’s
             consignment, the absence of physical recovery is not fatal to
             the case of criminal conspiracy under the UAPA and NDPS
             Act—which is made out from the Appellant’s meetings abroad,
             telephonic calls, alleged coordination through protected
             witnesses, and attempt to obfuscate documentary trails;
       (iv) the death of a key witness under suspicious circumstances on
            the day he was to record a judicial statement, apart from the
[2025] 6 S.C.R.                                                          299

                 Harpreet Singh Talwar @ Kabir Talwar v.
           The State of Gujarat th. National Investigating Agency

             fact that two critical witnesses remain untraceable, are clearly
             indicative of the risk of witness elimination or influence should
             the Appellant be enlarged on bail;
     (v)     this Court has already declined bail to similarly placed co-
             accused, including those who had remained in custody for over
             two years, on the ground that the rigours of Section 43D(5) of
             the UAPA were attracted. No mitigating circumstance has been
             shown to warrant a different conclusion in the present case,
             particularly when several key witnesses are yet to be examined,
             and multiple accused remain absconding;
     (vi) charges have since been framed in the ongoing trial, with several
          key witnesses already being examined—which indicates that
          the trial is progressing at a remarkable pace;
     (vii) the Appellant is a habitual economic offender, with antecedents
           involving smuggling and customs violations, which militates
           against grant of bail keeping in view the rigours of the subject-
           statutes; and
     (viii) the serious nature of the offences alleged against the Appellant,
            and their direct detrimental effect on the security of the nation
            necessarily postulate that the Appellant should not be afforded
            the relief of bail at this stage.
23. It may merit to discuss at the outset, the scope and application of
    Section 43D(5) of UAPA whereunder the court, at the stage of bail is
    not required to meticulously examine the admissibility and reliability
    of evidence. The degree of satisfaction required under this provision
    has to be lower than the proof beyond reasonable doubt, but must
    still be rooted in material that is not inherently improbable or ex
    facie unreliable.
24. The rigour of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA would, however, in an
    appropriate case yield to the overarching mandate of Article 21 of
    the Constitution, especially where the trial is inordinately delayed or
    where the incarceration becomes punitive. However, such relaxation
    cannot possibly be automatic and must be evaluated in light of the
    specific facts and risks associated with each case, as has been
    previously clarified.1


1   Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713.
300                                                          [2025] 6 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


25. Having given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced
    by both sides and upon careful perusal of the material on record, we
    are of the view that the Appellant has not been able to make out a
    case for grant of regular bail at this stage.
26. We say so for the reason that 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 consignment, although not seized
    with heroin, shares structural and logistical similarities with those
    where heroin was ultimately found.
27. The charge against the Appellant must also be evaluated in light
    of the broader matrix of facts, including (i) his alleged meetings in
    Dubai with a principal foreign accused; (ii) the transfer of documents
    through intermediaries for the clearance of a flagged consignment; (iii)
    efforts to retrospectively fabricate invoices and assign responsibility
    to others; (iv) the use of multiple firms allegedly connected to him to
    obfuscate the true nature of the transactions; and (v) his telephonic
    calls to certain co-conspirators. These aspects, supported by the
    statements of protected witnesses and circumstantial linkages,
    currently meet the threshold of prima facie satisfaction regarding
    the Appellant’s complicity.
28. This Court is cognizant of the fact that no heroin or narcotic substances
    were directly recovered from the consignment linked to the Appellant.
    However, the investigative narrative does not rest solely on physical
    recovery but proceeds on the basis of conspiracy and facilitation. In
    such cases, the absence of direct seizure is not dispositive, particularly
    where there exists a pattern of covert coordination, fictitious entities,
    and barter-based compensation—features which, according to
    the prosecution, mark the smuggling architecture employed in the
    present matter.
29. 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 seizure in the connected
    consignment is part of what the Prosecution claims to be the largest
    heroin bust in Indian history, valued at over INR 21,000 crores. The
[2025] 6 S.C.R.                                                         301

               Harpreet Singh Talwar @ Kabir Talwar v.
         The State of Gujarat th. National Investigating Agency

     scale and sophistication of the operation, involving foreign syndicates,
     shell firms, medical visas, and false documentation, elevates this
     case far beyond routine NDPS violations.
30. This Court also cannot ignore the fact that multiple key witnesses
    still remain to be examined, and the trial while underway, will take
    time in completion. 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 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.
31. Moreover, the Appellant’s criminal antecedents, though not
    involving prior accusations under the NDPS Act, include multiple
    DRI and customs proceedings involving smuggling of cigarettes,
    undervaluation of imports, and alleged complicity in corruption
    offences. These antecedents are relevant only for the limited purpose
    of evaluating the Appellant’s propensity to interfere with the process
    of justice if enlarged on bail.
32. NIA has also highlighted that several accused remain absconding,
    including the primary foreign conspirators. In that context, the
    Appellant’s foreign travel, overseas connections, and financial
    capacity cannot be overlooked in evaluating the possibility of flight
    risk. These are not speculative concerns but flow directly from the
    Appellant’s prior conduct and profile.
33. We are conscious of the settled principle that pre-trial incarceration
    should not translate into punitive detention. The Appellant has been in
    custody since 24.08.2022, and while we do not find that this duration
    alone warrants bail under the present circumstances, the Appellant
    shall remain at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after a period of
    six months, or upon substantial advancement in the trial, whichever
    is earlier. Such a course would allow the Prosecution to complete
    the examination of its core witnesses while preserving the accused’s
    right to seek release at a later and more appropriate stage.
34. Before parting with this matter, we deem it necessary to clarify that,
    at this stage, it would be premature and speculative to extend the
    allegations against the Appellant to the domain of terror financing.
    While the prosecution has invoked provisions of the UAPA and has
302                                                              [2025] 6 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


       broadly linked the smuggling enterprise to trans-national syndicates
       with suspected affiliations, there is no compelling reason to currently
       link the Appellant and proscribed terrorist organisations, either within
       or outside the country. The evidentiary foundation to sustain such
       a grave allegation must be clear and compelling—something that,
       can be seen only after a substantial portion of evidence is led by
       both the parties.
35. In light of the foregoing discussion, and without expressing any
    opinion on the merits of the case, we dismiss the instant appeal
    with the following directions:
       i.      We are not inclined to enlarge the Appellant on regular bail at
               this stage. He shall be at liberty to renew his plea for regular
               bail after a period of 6 months, or at a stage where the ongoing
               trial has progressed substantially;
       ii.     The NIA is directed to submit to the Special Court an additional
               list of witnesses who, in its assessment, are sensitive or material,
               inasmuch as their testimony may have a direct bearing on the
               role of the Appellant or other co-accused in the ongoing trial
               and connected investigation;
       iii.    The Special Court is directed to list the matter twice in a month
               and record the statements of Prosecution witnesses on a
               continuous and uninterrupted basis; and
       iv.     If the Presiding Officer of the Special Court has not been posted
               thus far, we request the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court
               of Gujarat to do the needful within a week.
36. As a measure of abundant caution and at the cost of repetition, we
    make clear that this order shall not be construed as an expression
    of opinion on the merits of the case and shall not prejudice the trial
    proceedings in any manner.
37. Ordered accordingly. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

       Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey