The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the bail pleas of Gurmukh Singh, son of former Akal Takht Jathedar Jasbir Singh Rode, and co-accused Gurmej Singh in a case related to the smuggling of narcotics, arms, and explosives from Pakistan through drones to allegedly fund terrorist activities in India.
A division bench of Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Justice Ramesh Kumari passed the order on December 5, observing that the nature of allegations pointed to a broader nexus between narcotics smuggling and terrorism, and that the accused had strong links with anti-national elements operating from across the border.
The High Court noted that “sponsoring terrorism is an expensive affair” and that the charges involve cross-border heroin smuggling as a means to finance terrorism.
“The facts brought on record by the respondent NIA prima facie prove the involvement of the appellants in the terrorist activities. The trial is in progress. Since they have links with persons across the border, who fund their activities, there are also chances of their absconding from trial,” the bench observed.
The bench rejected the argument that the appellants were falsely implicated and stated that their activities reflected a “nexus between narcotics and terrorism”—a growing dimension of anti-national activities.
The National Investigation Agency (NIA), which is probing the case, had earlier submitted that money generated from narcotic sales was being channeled into terror operations within India. The High Court took note of this submission and said the accused were “actively involved in India for terror funding at the behest of their masters, who are working from across the border in Pakistan.”
Counsel for Gurmukh Singh had argued that his client was implicated based on the statement of a co-accused, and that the charges were politically motivated. However, the court found no merit in this claim, noting that the evidence placed on record by the NIA established a prima facie case of involvement in narco-terrorism.
The appellants had earlier approached the NIA Special Court in Punjab seeking regular bail, which was denied. Their appeals to the High Court were also unsuccessful, with the division bench refusing to interfere at this stage of the proceedings, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the likelihood of tampering with evidence or fleeing justice.
