The Supreme Court held that physical recovery of contraband is not necessary to determine conspiracy and facilitation of a crime in a narcotics smuggling operation.
Harpreet Singh Talwar was accused of facilitating the import of a consignment containing heroin and carrying out a transnational smuggling operation linked to Afghan-based syndicates, with proceeds alleged to have been linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba. No narcotics were directly retrieved from his consignment. He was charged with criminal conspiracy and large-scale drug trafficking under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS), the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code, 1890 (IPC). The Gujarat High Court had denied bail to Talwar.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s judgement denying bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. It ruled that direct evidence is not necessary when there is a pattern of conspiracy under UAPA and NDPS.
Read the Judgement here.
Harpreet Singh Talwar @ Kabir Talwar v State of Gujarat
13 May 2025
Citations: 2025 INSC 662 | 2025 SCO.LR 5(2)[8]
Case Comment
Held, 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.
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
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
Key words/phrases: Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act—no bail under Section 43D(5)—Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act—direct evidence not necessary for criminal conspiracy
Subscribe to our updates now and be the first to know about the latest news and developments. Subscribe here: https://relegal.in/subscribe/
#legalcousel #legalawareness #legaladvice #UAPA #NDPS #directevidence #bail #criminalconsipiracy #terror #unlawfulactivities #narcotics