2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 8375
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
IJV, PMR
FARDIN AMERY @ FARDIN KHAN OMER AMERY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (FOR QUASHING OF ORDER/STAY) NO. 471 of
2025 ==========================================================
FARDIN AMERY @ FARDIN KHAN OMER AMERY Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AFZALKHAN A PATHAN(11420) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 VALIMOHAMMED PATHAN(6383) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 KSHITIJ M AMIN(7572) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL Date : 12/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL)
1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant – original accused No.7 under the provisions of Section 21(1) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 read with section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Shuraksha Sanhita 2023 against the order dated 19.3.2024 passed in NIA Special Case No.01 of 2022 by the learned Special Judge, NIA, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad.
2. The facts in brief qua the present appellant are as follows:
2.1 The allegation against the present appellant is that he played role of coordinator in facilitation of consignment of heroin laced talc stones imported into India in December 2020 through Mundra Port, Gujarat by the firm named M/s Magent India. The offence came to light when the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Gandhidham Unit registered the case which pertains to seizure of 2988.21 kg of heroin alleged to have been originated from Afghanistan and routed through Bandar Abbas, Iran. The said drugs were smuggled to India concealed as talc powder in a consignment addressed to one M/s Ashi Trading Company. Based on the intelligence input, NIA took over the case and FIR came to be registered on 10.6.2021 under the NDPS Act and UAPA. The NIA has further alleged that the present appellant had made arrangement for off-loading the drugs consignment of M/s Ashi Trading Company at Khasra Nos.712-713 located at Alipur, Delhi and recovering
16.105 kgs of powdery substance when the raid was conducted on 17.9.2021 came to be recovered from the floor sweepings. However, warehouse was found empty. Thus, it is the case of the prosecution that the present appellant has assisted WA 4 along with Pradeep Kumar – A5, Mohammad Hussain – A6 in off-loading consignment at the said warehouse. It is also the case of the prosecution that FIR bearing No.90 of 2021 registered at Garhshankar Police Station, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab is also connected with the present case inasmuch as regarding the purification and supply of heroin in furtherance of larger conspiracy of the present case. It is also found during investigation that in July 2021, Punjab Police had raided a farmhouse at Sainik Farm, Delhi resulting in recovery of 20.700 kg of heroin and four Afghan nationals came to be arrested on the instructions of Mohammad Hussain Dad (WA 1) and also further arrested 13 accused from UP and Delhi who used to collect and sent the drugs money to Hussain Dad (WA 1) in Afghanistan.
3. Learned advocates Mr.Vali Mohammad Pathan, Mr.Afzal Pathan and Mr.Saurav Sharma appearing for the appellant – original accused No.7 would contend that :
(a) That learned Special Judge has materially erred in appreciating the fact that there is nothing on record to support the presumption in view of the fact :
(i) That concerned consignment which came to India before 14.9.2021 contains contraband;
(ii) That Fardin Amery was connected with the trade of contraband substance;
(iii) That Fardin was ever recipient of any proceeds from the trade of contraband substance; (iv) That Fardin was involved in criminal conspiracy considering that there is no evidence of communication between Fardin and other co-
accused in relation to contraband substance.
(b) That learned trial Judge has erred in holding that UAPA Act 1967 is applicable in the present case