7 years on, Gujarat High Court grants bail to man linked to 200 kg heroin haul, Pakistan drug syndicate

The high court was hearing the plea of one Rafik Adam Sumra challenging the denial of bail by the session court in November 2025. 

‘Bail before trial, after trial different’

• The only consideration for considering the request for bail by an accused, after the trial has been commenced, would be the delay in the conclusion of the trial and the reasons for such delay.
• It is to be stated here that the considerations for the grant of bail before the commencement of the trial would stand on a completely different footing as compared to the grant of bail after the trial has commenced.
• The right to a speedy trial is considered as a fundamental right guaranteed to a person under Article 21 of the Constitution, noted the Gujarat High Court. 

The bench said that the only consideration for the request for bail, after the trial has been commenced, would be the delay in the conclusion of the trial and the reasons for such delay. (AI-enhanced image)

• In the guise of detaining him to facilitate a trial, an accused cannot be subjected to punitive detention. 
• In respect of offences under the special statutes, such as the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the parameters for granting bail are made more restrictive as compared to the crimes under the regular penal laws.
• The constitutional and statutory provisions indicate that the right to a speedy trial is not a mere wishful exercise but is required to be necessarily complied with as a legal obligation. 
• The NIA chose not to conduct the trial until all the cases were consolidated and transferred to the court, and this would therefore indicate that the petitioner has been in no way responsible for the delay in the trial.
• The Gujarat High Court pointed out that the granting of bail arises in different circumstances. The first instance where an accused can seek bail is when he is arrested and produced before the competent court. 
• Secondly, the accused is conferred a right to be enlarged on bail if the investigation is not concluded within the statutorily prescribed timeline.

‘3 FIRs, one 200 kg heroin case’

• On August 12, 2018, the state anti-terrorism squad (ATS) registered a case against the accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
• The squad seized 4.9 kg of heroin, which was in the possession of Aziz Abdul Bhagad, another accused. 
• It was alleged that heroin was smuggled by Pakistani nationals in a Pakistani fishing vessel and was delivered in Indian maritime waters to an Indian vessel owned by Bhagad.
• The present accused was arrested by the squad along with Bhagad on August 18, 2018, along with three other persons. 
• Another FIR was lodged on August 29, 2018, in relation to the seizure of 8 kg of heroin from the possession of Sukhbir Singh. This led to the arrest of nine more persons. 
• The day after tomorrow, ATS lodged another FIR relating to the seizure of 188 kg of heroin.
• This seizure was part of a consignment of 200 kg of heroin, which was smuggled from Pakistan to Gujarat and transported to Punjab. 

• In June 2020, the centre directed the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to investigate all three crimes, taking into consideration that all three crimes were part of the same offence. 
• It was noted that the NIA Court had framed charges in July 2023, in the case pending before, but the trial did not commence immediately because the NIA was seeking clubbing of all three cases and transfer of all the cases to the NIA Court.
• The present accused, Rafik, has remained in custody since August 2008. In other words, the accused has been in custody for the past seven-and-a-half years. 
• It was placed on record that 46 witnesses have been examined, and 134 witnesses are yet to be examined by the NIA.

‘Violating right to speedy trial’

• Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate I H Syed, argued that there has been an inordinate delay in the conduct of the trial, and there is definitely no possibility of the trial concluding in the near future. 
• He admitted that only 46 witnesses have been examined by the NIA, and the examination of the remaining 134 witnesses would consume an enormous amount of time.
• He submitted that prolonged incarceration due to a delay in trial would amount to a direct contravention of the right to a speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, even if the accused is charged under the special statute. 
• He also added that the considerations for the grant of bail before the commencement of trial and the considerations for the grant of bail due to a delay in trial are markedly different. 

‘Accused is in fact guilty’

• On the contrary, NIA’s counsel, advocate Ankit Shah, submitted that the case involved seizure of enormous quantities of heroin.
• He added that there was also material to indicate that there was a larger international conspiracy, and the conspiracy was to commit terrorist acts. 
• It was further added that there is material to indicate that the heroin seized was kept in the godown belonging to the accused, and that he had transported a larger consignment to Punjab. 
• He submitted that in the instant case, considering the evidence placed on record, it is clear that the accused are in fact guilty and would therefore not be entitled to bail.