news details |
|
|
| HC rejects bail plea of alleged kingpin in cross-border narco-terror case | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Oct 13: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed the bail appeal of an accused allegedly involved in a cross-border narco-terrorism conspiracy linked to the banned terrorist organisation Babbar Khalsa International (BKI), holding that prolonged incarceration and delay in trial cannot, by themselves, justify bail where prima facie material indicates involvement in serious offences relating to terror financing and narcotics smuggling.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar and Justice Shahzad Azeem dismissed the appeal filed by Gurpartap Singh against the October 16, 2025 order of the Special Judge, NIA, Jammu, rejecting his bail application in a case investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
The case originated from an incident on September 20, 2020, when firing from the Pakistan side of the International Border near Arnia was followed by a search operation conducted by the Border Security Force between Border Outposts Bulley Chak and Budhwar. The operation resulted in the recovery of 61.420 kilograms of heroin, 1.245 kilograms of opium, two pistols, three magazines and 100 live cartridges.
The investigation was subsequently taken over by the NIA following allegations of involvement of Babbar Khalsa International in a conspiracy to smuggle narcotics and weapons from Pakistan for raising terror funds.
According to the prosecution, Gurpartap Singh was a central figure in the alleged smuggling module and had provided Rs 20 lakh for the successful execution of an earlier consignment involving 10 kilograms of heroin. He was also accused of arranging distinctive bags for transporting money and directing reconnaissance of vulnerable points along the International Border.
Appearing for the appellant, Advocate Iqbal Hussain Bhat argued that his client had remained incarcerated for more than five years, resulting in a violation of his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
He also sought bail on the ground of parity, contending that several co-accused had already been granted bail. The defence further maintained that no narcotics had been recovered from the appellant and that witnesses examined so far had not implicated him.
Opposing the appeal, Deputy Solicitor General of India Vishal Sharma, assisted by Central Government Standing Counsel Karan Sharma and NIA Public Prosecutor Ahwani Verma, submitted that sufficient prima facie evidence existed against the appellant and that the statutory restrictions under Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Section 37 of the NDPS Act barred the grant of bail unless the prescribed conditions were satisfied.
After examining the record, the Division Bench observed that statements of material and protected witnesses, recovery of a Babbar Khalsa International letter pad from the appellant's residence and other documentary evidence prima facie indicated his involvement in the alleged conspiracy.
The Court held that the stringent statutory conditions governing bail under the UAPA and NDPS Act could not be overlooked merely because the accused had remained in custody for a prolonged period.
Referring to Supreme Court judgments, including Gurwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and National Investigation Agency versus Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, the Bench observed that courts considering bail in serious terrorism-related cases must assess whether the accusations appear prima facie true without undertaking a detailed examination of evidence.
The Bench further held that grant of bail to co-accused does not automatically entitle another accused to similar relief, particularly when the nature and degree of alleged involvement are substantially different.
In the present case, the Court observed that Gurpartap Singh had been attributed a more prominent role as an alleged organiser and financier of the narco-terrorism module, whereas the co-accused granted bail had been assigned comparatively limited roles as carriers or facilitators.
The Court also observed that several material witnesses, including protected witnesses and experts, were yet to be examined and that the evidence on record did not justify granting bail at the present stage.
Holding that sufficient prima facie material existed indicating the appellant's alleged involvement in smuggling commercial quantities of narcotics and raising funds for a banned terrorist organisation, the Division Bench declined to interfere with the Special Court's order.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the bail plea rejected.
However, the High Court directed the trial court to expedite proceedings and record the evidence of witnesses by fixing an appropriate schedule.
The Bench clarified that its observations were confined to the adjudication of the bail appeal and would not prejudice the merits of the case during trial. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
