9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1004X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rm'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 actu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 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. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ving 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 call ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rged 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
