SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has rejected the bail appeal of Gurpartap Singh, accused of financing a Babbar Khalsa International (BKI)-linked narco-terrorism module involved in the alleged smuggling of commercial quantities of heroin and arms from Pakistan across the International Border in the Arnia sector, while directing the trial court to expedite the proceedings and record witnesses through an appropriate schedule.
A Division Bench of Justice Shahzad Azeem and Justice Sanjay Dhar held that prima facie material on record indicated Singh’s involvement in the alleged conspiracy and that the stringent statutory conditions governing bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UA(P) Act) and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act had not been satisfied.
“We are of the view that there is prima-facie material indicating the involvement of the appellant in the larger conspiracy of smuggling commercial quantities of Heroin and Arms for the purpose of raising funds for BKI,” the Bench observed.
The judgment, pronounced on October 13, 2026, dismissed an appeal filed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008, challenging the October 16, 2025, order of the Special Judge, NIA, Jammu, which had rejected Singh’s bail application in RC No. 05/2020/NIA/JMU.
The High Court, however, directed the trial court to expedite the trial, observing that it expected the court to “proceed to record the witnesses by fixing appropriate calendar(s)”.
The case originated on September 20, 2020, when a police party from Police Station Arnia was patrolling near Bulley Chak. During the patrol, unprovoked firing allegedly started from the Pakistani side of the International Border.
Subsequent search operations conducted by the Border Security Force (BSF) between Border Outposts Bulley Chak and Budhwar led to the recovery of 61.420 kg of heroin, 1.245 kg of opium, two pistols, three magazines and 100 live cartridges.
Following the recovery, FIR No. 65/2020 was registered at Police Station Arnia under Sections 307, 120-B and 121 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7/25 of the Arms Act. During the investigation, seven accused, including Singh, were arrested, and further recoveries of heroin, arms and cash were made.
Considering the alleged involvement of a banned terrorist organisation and the large quantity of narcotics recovered, the Central Government transferred the investigation to the NIA. The agency subsequently registered the case as RC No. 05/2020/NIA/JMU and filed a charge-sheet on April 17, 2021, under Sections 8, 21, 23, 27-A and 29 of the NDPS Act, read with Section 120-B of the IPC and Sections 17, 18, 38, 39 and 40 of the UA(P) Act.
Charges were framed against the accused, including Singh, on August 23, 2022.
According to the prosecution, Singh was the alleged central figure in a module involved in smuggling commercial quantities of heroin and arms from Pakistan through the Arnia sector to generate funds for BKI.
The agency alleged that Singh had provided Rs 20 lakh for the successful execution of an initial consignment involving 10 kg of heroin, procured distinctive bags for carrying the money and directed reconnaissance of vulnerable points along the International Border to facilitate the smuggling operations.
The prosecution also linked him to the larger consignment seized on September 20, 2020. Its case relied, among other material, on statements of protected witnesses, recoveries, call records and documentary evidence.
Appearing for Singh, Advocate Iqbal Hussain Bhat argued that his client had remained in custody for more than five years and that the prolonged delay in concluding the trial violated his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The defence also sought bail on the ground of parity, contending that certain co-accused had already been granted the same relief. It further argued that no recovery had been effected from Singh, that his alleged disclosure statements were inadmissible and that witnesses examined during the trial had not implicated him.
Opposing the appeal, Deputy Solicitor General of India Vishal Sharma, assisted by Central Government Standing Counsel Karan Sharma, Public Prosecutor Ahwani Verma and DSP Hargopal Singh, submitted that the mandatory restrictions under Section 43-D(5) of the UA(P) Act and Section 37 of the NDPS Act barred the grant of bail in the circumstances of the case.
The NIA maintained that sufficient prima facie material existed against Singh, including statements of protected witnesses, the recovery of a BKI letter pad from his residence and the distinctive bags allegedly purchased by him.
The agency also argued that the charges had already been framed and that the gravity of the alleged offences did not justify bail merely on the ground of delay in trial.
Examining the statutory restrictions, the Division Bench noted that the charges against Singh included offences under Chapters IV and VI of the UA(P) Act, attracting the restrictions under Section 43-D(5). Since the prosecution also involved commercial quantities of heroin, the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were equally applicable.
The Bench observed that before bail could be granted, the court had to be satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations were not prima facie true and that the accused was not guilty of the alleged offences and was unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.
It further explained that a court considering bail under these provisions was not required to conduct a detailed examination of the evidence or determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Instead, it had to assess the broad probabilities emerging from the material collected during the investigation.
On examining the evidence, the Bench referred to statements of witnesses PW-31, PW-32, PW-37, PW-38, PW-40 and PW-41, including protected witnesses, besides the recovery of a BKI letter pad from Singh’s residence and the distinctive bag allegedly purchased by him for carrying money.
The court said several material witnesses, including protected witnesses and experts, were yet to be examined and that the stage had not been reached to record the satisfaction required under the two statutory provisions.
It also noted that expert reports relating to CERT-In and scrutiny of SIM cards were yet to be examined in connection with certain electronic gadgets allegedly recovered from Singh’s residence.
Rejecting the argument of prolonged incarceration, the Bench held that the nature and gravity of the allegations, particularly those involving alleged terrorism financing and narcotics-related terrorism, could not be overlooked while considering bail.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, the High Court noted that the conventional principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” did not apply in the same manner to bail applications under the UA(P) Act.
The Bench also referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, distinguishing cases involving grave offences where the trial was underway and material witnesses remained to be examined. It observed that mere delay in trial could not, in the circumstances of the present case, automatically justify bail.
The court further referred to the Supreme Court judgments in National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali and Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif, which deal with the statutory restrictions governing bail under the UA(P) Act and NDPS Act respectively.
The Bench also took note of the prosecution’s claim that Singh was named in as many as 11 FIRs, as reflected in the charge-sheet, while examining the applicability of the NDPS Act’s bail restrictions.
On the plea of parity, the court held that the grant of bail to co-accused did not automatically entitle Singh to similar relief. It said the individual role, nature of allegations, degree of involvement and stage of trial had to be examined in each case.
The Bench observed that Singh had been projected as the principal conspirator and alleged financier of the module, whereas the co-accused who had secured bail were attributed comparatively limited roles, including those of carriers and local facilitators.
“The role attributed to the appellant being that of a principal conspirator and fund raiser for BKI is not comparable,” the court observed, rejecting his claim to bail on the ground of parity.
The Bench consequently found no ground to interfere with the trial court’s order, holding that prima facie material indicated Singh’s alleged involvement in smuggling commercial quantities of narcotics and raising funds for a banned terrorist organisation.
It clarified that its observations were confined to the adjudication of the bail appeal and would not prejudice the merits of the case during the trial.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed, with a direction to the trial court to expedite the proceedings.
Advocate Iqbal Hussain Bhat appeared for the appellant, while DSGI Vishal Sharma, CGSC Karan Sharma, Public Prosecutor Ahwani Verma and DSP Hargopal Singh represented the NIA.
