HC rejects bail plea of alleged kingpin in cross-border narco-terror case

14/10/2026

JAMMU, Oct 13: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed the bail appeal of Gurpartap Singh, an accused in an alleged cross-border narco-terrorism conspiracy linked to the banned Babbar Khalsa International (BKI), holding that prolonged incarceration and delay in trial cannot, by themselves, justify bail when prima facie material indicates involvement in serious offences.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar and Justice Shahzad Azeem dismissed the appeal challenging the October 16, 2025, order of the Special Judge, National Investigation Agency (NIA), Jammu, which had rejected his bail plea.
The case relates to an incident on September 20, 2020, when firing from the Pakistan side of the International Border near Arnia was followed by a search operation by the Border Security Force between Border Outposts Bulley Chak and Budhwar. The operation led to the recovery of 61.420 kg of heroin, 1.245 kg of opium, two pistols, three magazines and 100 live cartridges.
The investigation was subsequently taken over by the NIA amid allegations of a conspiracy involving BKI to smuggle narcotics and weapons from Pakistan to generate funds for terrorist activities.
According to the prosecution, Gurpartap Singh allegedly played a central role in the smuggling network, provided Rs. 20 lakh for an earlier consignment involving 10 kg of heroin, arranged distinctive bags for transporting money and directed reconnaissance of vulnerable locations along the International Border.
Appearing for the appellant, Advocate Iqbal Hussain Bhat argued that his client had remained in custody for more than five years, violating his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. He also sought parity with co-accused who had been granted bail, contending 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 material existed against the accused. The prosecution also relied on the stringent bail restrictions under Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
After examining the record, the Division Bench observed that statements of material and protected witnesses, the recovery of a BKI letter pad from the appellant's residence and other documentary evidence prima facie indicated his alleged involvement in the conspiracy.
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 dealing with bail applications in serious terrorism-related cases must assess whether the accusations appear prima facie true without undertaking a detailed examination of the evidence.
The court further held that bail granted to co-accused does not automatically entitle another accused to similar relief, particularly where the nature and degree of their alleged involvement differ substantially.
In the present case, the Bench noted that the appellant had allegedly played a more prominent role as an 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. It found no sufficient ground to grant bail at the present stage, given the prima facie material indicating the appellant's alleged involvement in smuggling commercial quantities of narcotics and raising funds for a banned terrorist organisation.
Accordingly, the Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the rejection of bail by the Special Court.
However, the High Court directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings and schedule the examination of witnesses appropriately.
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.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty