SUPREME COURT DENIES BAIL TO KABIR TALWAR IN HEROIN SMUGGLING CASE
The Judgment in the Case of Harpreet Singh Talwar @ Kabir Talwar v. The State of Gujarat through National Investigating Agency, CRIMINAL APPEAL No. ____/2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8878/2024) was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon’ble Justice Surya Kantand Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh on 13th May 2025. The Supreme Court adjudicated on whether Harpreet Singh Talwar should be granted regular bail in a high-profile narcotics smuggling case involving heroin smuggled from Afghanistan.
Facts of the Case
Harpreet Singh Talwar alias Kabir Talwar was arrested on 24 August 2022 and is accused of playing a central role in facilitating the import of a heroin laced consignment disguised as talc stones. This consignment was imported in December 2020 via Mundra Port under the cover of a firm, M/s Magent India, allegedly controlled by Talwar. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) initially investigated the case, which involved the seizure of nearly 3,000 kg of heroin. Based on the scale of the operation and international links, particularly to Afghan based syndicates, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over the case. The NIA alleges Talwar’s involvement in a criminal conspiracy involving meetings with international smugglers in Dubai, setting up fake import firms, and using barter trade mechanisms to disguise illegal proceeds.
Issues
- Whether the Petitioner is entitled to regular bail considering the gravity and stage of investigation under the NDPS Act and UAPA
- Whether the Petitioner’s alleged involvement in forming and controlling M/s Magent India and coordinating the consignment justifies continued incarceration
- Whether the evidence cited by the Prosecution, including protected witness statements and forensic findings, sufficiently implicates the Petitioner at this stage
Contentions by Both Parties
Appellant Contentions (Harpreet Singh Talwar)
The Appellant claimed he is being falsely implicated based on weak and uncorroborated evidence. He denied any ownership or control of M/s Magent India, asserting it was independently operated. He also emphasized that no drugs were found in his possession and that his alleged involvement is only indirect or inferential. The Appellant stressed prolonged incarceration without conviction violates his right to liberty.
Respondent Contentions (NIA / State of Gujarat)
The Respondent argued that Talwar was the main conspirator who facilitated the entire consignment under a shell company. They also cited witness statements and documentary evidence showing Talwar’s active coordination of the import process. They highlighted Talwar’s international connections to known smugglers and the clandestine nature of the transactions (including barter for perfumes and dry fruits instead of financial remittance).The Respondents emphasized the ongoing trial, seriousness of the offence, and risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses if released on bail. The Respondents argued that the Appellant was a key facilitator in multiple major consignments forming part of a ₹21,000 crores heroin smuggling operation, one of the largest in India’s history.
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal and refused to grant regular bail to Harpreet Singh Talwar. The Court found that prima facie evidence strongly indicated his central role in the narcotics smuggling conspiracy. It noted the gravity of the offence, the stage of trial (still at prosecution witness examination), and the presence of corroborated statements and digital records. The Court held that releasing the Accused at this point could compromise the integrity of the trial process. The Court also cited the serious nature of the charges, the potential for witness tampering and the ongoing investigation as reasons for not granting bail. However, the Appellant was given the liberty to renew his bail plea after six months or if there is substantial progress in the trial. The Court also directed the NIA to provide a list of key witnesses to the Special Court and emphasized the need for an expeditious trial. The bail plea was thus rejected.
Parichaya Reddy
Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
Please log on to our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest video, titled “Legal Aspects of War | How International Law Governs Armed Conflicts” Legal Tips can be viewed at the link below:
Leave a Reply