Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Guj) 1041

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
N.S. SANJAY GOWDA, D. M. VYAS, JJ.
Harpreet Singh Talwar @ Kabir Talwar – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Gujarat And Anr. – Respondents
R/Criminal Appeal (Regular Bail - After Chargesheet) No. 15 Of 2026
Decided On : 10-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For The Petitioner: Dr Aditya Sondhi, Senior Counsel With Mr Nipun Katyal, With Mr Manan Sharma, Mr Surya Singh Rana With Mr Darshit H Raval
For The Respondent: Mr Ankit Shah With Mr Sandeep K Sadawarte, Mr Dharmesh Singh, Adv, Mr Girish Gothwal, Dysp/Cio, Mr Chintan Dave, App

When an accused remains in custody for an inordinate period during trial, stringent statutory bail restrictions must yield to the fundamental right to a speedy trial. Incarceration becomes punitive once material prosecution witnesses are examined, necessitating bail to protect constitutional liberties.

Headnote:(A) Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Law - Stringent provisions for bail - Right to speedy trial under Constitutional provisions - Statutory embargo for bail does not prevail over right to liberty in cases of prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay - Incarceration becomes punitive when trial proceedings are protracted beyond reasonable justification. (Paras 43-69)

(B) Bail - Entitlement - Where trial has commenced and all relevant prosecution witnesses identified as sensitive or material have been examined, prolonging custody solely based on statutory rigors violates constitutional protections - Duty of prosecution to complete examination within stipulated timelines - Non-compliance with court-mandated schedules for evidence gathering necessitates the application of liberalized bail norms. (Paras 70-97)

Facts of the case:
The appellant remained in custody as an under-trial prisoner for over three years. Multiple charges were filed, and the trial was monitored by the highest court to ensure witness safety and expeditious proceedings. All identified vulnerable and sensitive witnesses significant to the role of the accused were successfully examined, and no further witnesses remained for the prosecution to examine regarding the applicant's specific role in the alleged offence.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that statutory restrictions on bail must yield to the fundamental right to liberty when trial proceedings are inordinately delayed. Since the core witnesses relevant to the case against the appellant have already been examined, concerns regarding witness influence are neutralized. Therefore, continued incarceration at this stage serves no restorative or protective purpose and becomes punitive.

Issues: Whether an accused charged with serious narcotic offences is entitled to bail after prolonged pre-trial detention despite stringent statutory conditions, and whether inordinate trial delay warrants a relaxation of regulatory norms regarding release.

Ratio Decidendi: Prolonged detention during trial, particularly when the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future and where sensitive, vulnerable witnesses have already been examined, renders the continued incarceration punitive. In such circumstances, constitutional protections for a speedy trial outweigh the statutory rigors normally applicable to such offences.

Result: Appeal allowed; the appellant is ordered to be released on bail subject to conditions to be imposed by the trial court.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
2. apex court monitoring of trial and directions for witness examination. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
3. competing contentions regarding delay and bail entitlement. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
4. legal framework for bail and impact of trial duration. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69)
5. assessment of delay in current trial and witness completion. (Para 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91)
6. granting bail due to completed evidence and trial delay. (Para 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97)

JUDGMENT :

N.S.SANJAY GOWDA, J.

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS BEFORE THE NIA COURT AND THIS COURT:

1. The Directorate of Criminal Intelligence, Gandhidham, registered a case for the offences under the NDPS Act, which was relatable to the seizure of 2988.21 Kgs. of narcotic drug (heroin). According to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), the consignment was sent from Afghanistan via Bandar Abbas Port Iran to Mundra Port, Gujarat and the heroin was imported in India, concealed with talc powder and was imported by a company named “Ashi Training Company”.

2. It appears that on the basis of intelligence input, the consignment was intercepted on 11.9.2021, leading to the seizure of a huge quantity of Heroin and on further investigation, there was another seizure made at Alipur, New Delhi, which led to arrest of several persons.

3. Taking into consideration the magnitude of the offence, the Ministry of Home Affairs, in exercise of the powers under the NIA Act, transferred the case to the NIA on 6.10.2021 and accordingly, the NIA registered the case on 16.10.2021.

4. The NIA after investigation, which led to the arrest of several persons, ultimately, on 14.3.2022, filed a charge-sheet against 10 accused persons and also against 6 other wanted accused persons.

5. A further investigation was continued, during the course of which, 9 other persons were arrested, and a supplementary charge-sheet was also filed on 29.8.2022.

6. The appellant herein, was arrested on 25.8.2022 and he was arraigned as accused No.24 in the supplementary charge-sheet that was filed on 29.8.2022.

7. Subsequently, further supplementary charge-sheets were also filed (details of which would not be necessary for the purpose of this case).

8. The appellant sought for grant of bail by making an application before the Session Court. However, the Sessions Court, by an order dated 13.7.2023, rejected said bail application.

9. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred a bail application before this Court being Criminal Appeal No.1980 of 2023. This Court, by an order dated 28.3.2024, dismissed the Appeal and thereby confirmed the rejection of the bail application.

10. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of his bail application and its affirmation by this Court, the appellant approached the Supreme Court by filing SLP (Criminal) No.8878 of 2024.

11. At this stage, the orders passed by the Supreme Court, from time to time, till the disposal of the said SLP would be relevant and also necessary.

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS BEFORE THE APEX COURT:

12. The Supreme Court on 25.9.2024, taking note of the contentions of the appellant that the charges were yet to be framed and the charge-sheet ran into more than 20,000 pages and as many as 500 persons were cited as witnesses and there was no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future, proceeded to come to observe that instead of opining on the merits of the prayer for bail, it would be appropriate to issue directions to this Court to take up the appeals filed against the rejection of the applications for discharge and decide the same within 2 months. The Supreme Court also directed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Guj) 1041

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADN.S. SANJAY GOWDA, D. M. VYAS, JJ.Harpreet Singh Talwar @ Kabir Talwar – Petitioner VersusThe State Of Gujarat And Anr. – Respondents R/Criminal Appeal (Regular Bail - After Chargesheet) No. 15 Of 2026Decided On : 10-04-2026

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
N.S. SANJAY GOWDA, D. M. VYAS, JJ.
Harpreet Singh Talwar @ Kabir Talwar – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Gujarat And Anr. – Respondents
R/Criminal Appeal (Regular Bail - After Chargesheet) No. 15 Of 2026
Decided On : 10-04-2026