SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has rejected the bail plea of Gurpartap Singh, accused of being a key organiser and financier of an alleged narco-terrorism network linked to the banned Babbar Khalsa International (BKI), while directing the trial court to expedite proceedings and record witnesses according to an appropriate schedule.
A Division Bench of Justice Shahzad Azeem and Justice Sanjay Dhar, in a judgment pronounced on October 13, held that prima facie material indicated Singh’s involvement in the alleged smuggling of commercial quantities of heroin and arms from across the International Border to raise funds for the banned organisation.
“We are satisfied that there is prima-facie material indicating the complicity of the appellant in the alleged offences of smuggling commercial quantities of narcotics and raising funds for a banned terrorist organization,” the Bench observed, dismissing his appeal against the rejection of bail by the Special Judge, National Investigation Agency (NIA), Jammu.
The court said the stringent bail restrictions under Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act applied to the case. It held that the material on record did not warrant interference with the trial court’s order.
The Bench, however, clarified that its observations were confined to the bail proceedings and would not prejudice the merits of the case during trial.
Singh had challenged the October 16, 2025, order of the Special Judge, NIA, Jammu, dismissing his bail application in the case registered as RC No. 05/2020/NIA/Jammu.
Advocate Iqbal Hussain Bhat appeared for Singh, while Deputy Solicitor General of India Vishal Sharma, Central Government Standing Counsel Karan Sharma and NIA Public Prosecutor Ahwani Verma represented the investigating agency. Deputy Superintendent of Police Hargopal Singh was also present for the respondent side.
The case dates back to September 20, 2020, when a police party from Arnia police station was patrolling near Bulley Chak as firing reportedly began from the Pakistan side of the International Border.
During subsequent search operations conducted by the Border Security Force between Border Out Posts Bulley Chak and Budhwar, 61.420 kg of heroin, 1.245 kg of opium, two pistols, three magazines and 100 live cartridges were recovered.
An FIR was registered at Arnia police station under Sections 307, 120-B and 121 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7 and 25 of the Arms Act. Seven accused, including Singh, were arrested during the investigation, with further recoveries of narcotics, arms and cash reported.
Given the quantity of narcotics recovered and the alleged involvement of BKI, the Central Government transferred the investigation to the NIA. The agency subsequently filed a charge sheet on April 17, 2021, invoking provisions of the NDPS Act, the UAPA and Section 120-B of the IPC. Charges were framed against the accused, including Singh, on August 23, 2022.
According to the prosecution, Singh was the central figure in a module allegedly involved in smuggling heroin and arms from Pakistan through the Arnia sector, with the objective of raising funds for BKI.
He was accused of providing Rs 20 lakh to facilitate an earlier consignment involving 10 kg of heroin, procuring distinctive bags to carry the money and directing reconnaissance of vulnerable points along the International Border. The prosecution also linked him to the larger consignment seized in September 2020.
The NIA relied on statements of protected witnesses, call records, recoveries and other documentary and material evidence. It also cited the recovery of a BKI letter pad from Singh’s residence and the distinctive bag allegedly purchased by him.
Opposing the bail appeal, the agency argued that sufficient prima facie material existed against Singh and that the statutory restrictions under both the UAPA and the NDPS Act barred his release unless the requisite conditions were satisfied. It maintained that the gravity of the alleged offences and the stage of the trial did not justify bail merely because of the time spent in custody.
Singh’s counsel, on the other hand, argued that he had remained incarcerated for more than five years, raising concerns over his right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The defence also sought bail on the ground of parity with co-accused who had been granted relief.
The appellant further contended that no recovery had been made directly from him, questioned the admissibility of disclosure statements and argued that witnesses examined so far had not implicated him.
The High Court rejected these submissions, observing that the prosecution material, including the statements of witnesses examined so far and the alleged recoveries, indicated his prima facie involvement in the larger conspiracy. It noted that several material witnesses, including protected witnesses and experts, were yet to be examined and that reports relating to the examination of electronic devices and SIM cards were also pending consideration.
On the question of prolonged incarceration, the Bench relied on Supreme Court judgments concerning bail restrictions under the UAPA and NDPS Act. It referred to the ruling in Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, observing that the conventional principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” does not apply in the same manner to bail applications under the UAPA.
The court also cited Supreme Court rulings holding that delay in trial, by itself, may not justify bail in grave cases where material witnesses remain to be examined and the statutory conditions for release have not been met.
Rejecting the plea of parity, the Bench said bail granted to co-accused does not automatically entitle another accused to similar relief. It held that the individual role attributed to each accused, the gravity of the allegations and the evidence against them must be assessed separately.
In Singh’s case, the court observed that the prosecution attributed to him a more prominent role than the co-accused who had been granted bail, describing him in the context of the allegations as an organiser and financier of the alleged network.
The Bench accordingly dismissed the appeal and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings. “We expect that the trial Court shall expedite the trial and proceed to record the witnesses by fixing appropriate calendar(s),” the judgment stated.
The court clarified that its findings were limited to deciding the bail appeal and would not affect the final determination of the charges during trial.
