Supreme Court of India
ANKUSH VIPAN KAPOORversusNATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 986
- Decided
- 16 December 2024
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- B V NAGARATHNA
Holding
Section 8 of the NIA Act must be interpreted expansively so that the NIA may investigate any other accused whose offence is connected to a scheduled offence, and the Central Government’s orders are valid.
Summary
The petitioner was arrested in Punjab for alleged NDNDPS offences and was granted bail, which was later cancelled by the High Court after the National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over the investigation of related scheduled offences under the UAPA. The Central Government, invoking Section 6(5) and Section 8 of the NIA Act, directed the NIA to investigate the petitioner’s non‑scheduled offences on the basis that they were connected to the scheduled offences being investigated in Gujarat. The petitioner challenged the validity of these orders, arguing that Section 8 should apply only to the accused already being investigated for a scheduled offence. The Supreme Court examined the language of Section 8, held that "the accused" must be given an expansive meaning to include any other person whose offence is connected to the scheduled offence, and that the Central Government’s orders were within its statutory power. Consequently, the Court dismissed both the Special Leave Petition and the writ petition, upholding the cancellation of bail and the transfer of the trial to Gujarat.
Issues considered
- Whether Section 8 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, permits the NIA to investigate non‑scheduled offences committed by persons other than the accused of a scheduled offence.
- Whether the expression "the accused" in Section 8 is limited to the accused of the scheduled offence or can include other co‑accused whose offences are connected to the scheduled offence.
- Whether the Central Government’s orders directing the NIA to investigate the petitioner’s NDNDPS offences are ultra vires the NIA Act.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959s. 30, s. 54, s. 59
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 439
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985s. 21, s. 21(c), s. 24, s. 25, s. 27, s. 27A, s. 29, s. 8(c)
- National Investigation Agency Act, 2008s. 14, s. 3, s. 6, s. 8
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967s. 17, s. 18
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Whether the NIA can investigate only the same accused who is present in the NIA investigation qua Scheduled Offences and for non-scheduled offence by virtue of Section 8 of the National Investigation Agency, 2008; In other words, can the accused person who, although not being investigated for any Scheduled Offences could be investigated by NIA because there exists a link between the two namely, Scheduled and non-scheduled offences, thereby connecting every co-accused; Whether, the expression “the accused” in Section
Subjects
Section 8 NIA ActScheduled offenceNon‑scheduled offenceConnected offencesNIA jurisdictionBail cancellationUAPANDNDPSPurposive interpretationCentral Government powerDrug trafficking
Judgment
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1743 : 2024 INSC 986
Ankush Vipan Kapoor
v.
National Investigation Agency
(Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2819 of 2024)
16 December 2024
[B.V. Nagarathna* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the NIA can investigate only the same accused who
is present in the NIA investigation qua Scheduled Offences and
for non-scheduled offence by virtue of Section 8 of the National
Investigation Agency, 2008; In other words, can the NIA investigate
any other accused person who, although not being investigated
for any Scheduled Offences could be investigated by NIA because
there exists a link between the two namely, Scheduled and
non-scheduled offences, thereby connecting every co-accused;
Whether, the expression “the accused” in Section 8 of the NIA Act
has to refer to only the accused in respect of whom a Scheduled
Offence is being investigated or it could include any other accused
whose name would emerge during the course of investigation of
a Scheduled Offence and who has committed an offence which
has a connection with the Scheduled Offence.
Headnotes†
National Investigation Agency, 2008 – ss.8, 6(5), 14 – Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – ss.17, 18 – Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – While investigating
a Scheduled Offence (an offence under UAPA), can NIA
investigate an Unscheduled Offence (an offence under NDPS
Act) – Orders passed by Central Government directing the NIA
to investigate certain offences under the NDPS Act against
the petitioner – Challenge to:
Held: While investigating the offences u/ss.17 and 18 of UAPA
(Scheduled Offences) by virtue of sub-section (5) of s.6, u/s.8 any
other offence such as an offence under the NDPS Act connected
* Author
1744 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
with the Scheduled Offences (ss.17 and 18 of the UAPA in the
instant case) could also be investigated – But, such other offence
must have a connection with the Scheduled Offence. [Para 7]
1.2 The investigation could also be of a person accused of an offence
which has a connection with a Scheduled Offence which is being
investigated on the basis of s.8 – Then, the Central Government
may also direct any such offence also to be investigated on receipt
of a report from the NIA as against any accused when it is already
investigating a Scheduled Offence against a certain accused, as
in the instant case provided that offence has a connection with
the Scheduled Offence – s.8 has to be read in continuation of
sub-section (5) of s.6 of the NIA Act – Thus, the NIA which is
carrying on an investigation into any Scheduled Offence, can also
investigate any other offence which any other accused may have
committed provided such other offence is also an offence connected
with the Scheduled Offence under investigation. [Paras 7.1, 7.3, 7.13]
1.3 Once the Central Government directs the NIA to investigate a
Scheduled Offence and during the course of such investigation of
a Scheduled Offence against an accused, it becomes necessary
for the NIA to also investigate any other offence which the said
accused is alleged to have committed, then such offence could
also be investigated provided that other offence to be investigated
is connected with the Scheduled Offence. [Para 7.3]
2.1 In the present case, the offences registered in FIR No.1/2018
at PS ATS, Ahmedabad, Gujarat (Gujarat case) and the offences
registered against the petitioner herein under FIR No.20/2020 and
under FIR No.23/2020 all being under the NDPS Act and in view
of the connectedness of the offence under NDPS Act with the
Scheduled Offence in Gujarat FIR No.01/2018 in respect of which
the Central Government was of the opinion that the provisions of
ss.17 and 18 of the UAPA (Scheduled Offences under the NIA Act)
were also attracted as a result, the Central Government directed
the NIA to investigate into the Scheduled Offences (ss.17 and 18
of the UAPA) on the basis of the initial order passed under sub-
section (5) of s.6 of the NIA Act on 29.06.2021. [Para 8.6]
2.2 Accordingly, when the NIA was investigating into the Scheduled
Offences in the Gujarat case, it forwarded reports to the Central
Government in respect of FIR No.23/2020 registered at Police
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1745
Ankush Vipan Kapoor v. National Investigation Agency
Station STF, District STF Wing, Amritsar, Punjab and FIR
No.20/2020 registered at PS STF, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab
under the provisions of the NDPS Act – On a consideration of the
said reports and on the strength of s.8 of the NIA Act, the Central
Government passed orders to investigate into the offences alleged
against the petitioner herein on the premise that those offences
have a connection with the Scheduled Offences. [Para 8.7]
2.3 Impugned orders of the Central Government are in accordance
with sub-section (5) of s.6 r/w s.8 – There is a connection, nexus
and a link which has been brought out between the Scheduled
Offences investigated by the NIA u/ss.17 and 18 of UAPA pursuant
to order dated 29.06.2020 (Annexure P-4) and subsequently under
the orders dated 28.06.2021 (Annexure P-6) and 12.10.2021
(Annexure P-9) insofar as the offences alleged against the petitioner
herein under the provisions of the NDPS Act are concerned
Annexures P-6 and P-9 were issued by the Central Government
by exercising power u/sub-section (5) of s.6 r/w s.8 of the NIA
Act and in continuation of Annexure P-4 – No reason to quash
the impugned orders at Annexures P-4, P-6 and P-9 issued by
respondent No.1 – NIA rightly sought cancellation of bail granted to
the petitioner by the High Court in respect of the offences alleged
against him under the NIA Act in the State of Punjab, as the said
offences are now being investigated by the NIA and there is also
transfer of the trial from the Punjab to Gujarat, to be tried along
with Scheduled Offences u/ss.17 and 18 of the UAPA as per s.14
of the NIA Act. [Paras 8.9, 8.10]
National Investigation Agency, 2008 – ss.8, 6(4), (5) –
Expression “the accused” used in s.8 – Interpretation – Scope
of the powers of the NIA u/s.8 – Whether, the expression “the
accused” in s.8 refers to only the accused in respect of whom
a Scheduled Offence is being investigated or it includes any
other accused whose name would emerge during the course of
investigation of a Scheduled Offence and who has committed
an offence which has a connection with the Scheduled Offence:
Held: The expression “the accused” in s.8 cannot be restricted
in its meaning and connotation to only the accused in respect of
whom investigation is being carried out pursuant to sub-sections (4)
and (5) of s.6 in respect of a Scheduled Offence – It could also
1746 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
include any other accused who has committed any other offence
provided that other offence committed by any other accused
has a connection or a nexus with the Scheduled Offence which
is detected during the course of investigation of any Scheduled
Offence – While investigating the accused regarding Scheduled
Offences, if the NIA submits a report about some other accused
who may have also committed certain offences connected with
the Scheduled Offences under investigation then, the Central
Government on a consideration of such a report may exercise
suo motu powers and direct the NIA to also investigate the other
accused also provided the offences alleged against the other
accused are offences, having a connection with the Scheduled
Offence already under investigation – This would be in the realm
of a joint investigation into Scheduled Offences which may have
occurred in different parts of the country but having a connection
with other offences also – Thus, the expression “the accused”
would have to be given an expansive and enlarged meaning.
[Paras 7.6, 7.10]
National Investigation Agency, 2008 – s.8 – While investigating
the accused of a Scheduled Offence, any other accused
could also be investigated on the strength of s.8 – Conditions
precedent for – Enumerated. [Para 7.12]
Words and Phrases – National Investigation Agency, 2008 –
s.8 – Use of “the” before a noun vis-à-vis “a” or “an”:
Held: The word “the” used before a noun “accused” in s.8 of the
NIA Act has a particularizing effect, as opposed to “a” or “an” –
However, “a” and “the” sometimes have to be interchangeably
interpreted having regard to the context in which it is found and
in order to give it a contextual connotation so as to advance
the object and purpose of the provision – s.8 has to be given a
purposive and meaningful interpretation, one which would advance
the object of s.6 and other provisions of the Act and cannot be
read in a curtailed and narrow fashion. [Para 7.11]
Illicit Drug Trade and Abuse – Effects – Debilitating impact of
drug trade and drug abuse, an immediate and serious concern
for India – Prevention of drug abuse – Role of parents, schools
and colleges, Local Communities and NGOs, NALSA, NCPCR
and NCB – Discussed – Word of caution for the youth.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1747
Ankush Vipan Kapoor v. National Investigation Agency
List of Acts
National Investigation Agency Act, 2008; Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967; Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985; Arms Act, 1959; Police Act, 1861; Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.
List of Keywords
Section 8 of National Investigation Agency, 2008; Scope of the powers
of the NIA under Section 8; NIA investigation qua Scheduled Offences
and for non-scheduled offence; Same accused; Any other accused
person; Link between Scheduled and non-scheduled offences; the
accused; Name emerged during the course of investigation of a
Scheduled Offence; Offence has a connection with the Scheduled
Offence; Report by the NIA; Offence to be investigated connected
with the Scheduled Offence; Cancellation of bail; Prevention of drug
abuse; Cross-border narco-terrorism; Recovery of 500 kgs of heroin;
Cross-border smuggling of drugs and narcotics substances; Drugs
syndicate; Transfer of the trial from the State of Punjab to the State
of Gujarat; Joint investigation into Scheduled Offences; Connection
with other offences; Suo motu powers; Illicit Drug Trade and Abuse;
Prevention of drug abuse Purposive interpretation; Meaningful
interpretation; Expansive meaning.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2819 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.01.2024 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRMM No. 24743 of 2023
With
W.P. (CRL.) No. 168 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv., Sumit
Kalra, Vipul Jindal, Ms. Yashika Malhotra, Ms. Simran Ahuja, Ms.
A. Arora, Vineet Dwivedi, Abhishek Gupta, Rajat Nair, Shivank
Pratap Singh, Sarthak Karol, Gaurang Bhushan, Vishnu Shankar
Jain, Ms. Shivika Mehra, Sagar Bhandare, Ms. Manisha Chava,
Arvind Kumar Sharma, Harshit Sethi, Ms. Mansi Tripathi, Kartik
Yadav, Nikilesh Ramachandran, Advs. for the appearing parties.
1748 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Judgment/Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Nagarathna, J.
The Writ Petition as well as the Special Leave Petition filed by the
very same petitioner raising similar questions of law and facts have
been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
Factual Background:
2. Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2819 of 2024 has been filed by the
petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 29.01.2024 passed
by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CRM-M No.24743
of 2023 cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner vide its Order
dated 05.07.2021.
2.1 The National Investigation Agency (for short, “NIA”) filed CRM-M
No.24743 of 2023 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court
seeking cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner herein
vide order dated 05.07.2021 in CRM-M No.23889 of 2021 in
case bearing FIR No.20/2020 dated 29.01.2020 under Sections
21, 25, 27A, 29, 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “NDPS Act”) and Sections 30,
53, 59 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station Special
Task Force (PS STF), District STF Wing, SAS Nagar, Mohali,
Punjab State. The aforesaid FIR was registered against one
Sukhbir Singh alias Happy on the statement of AIG Rachpal
Singh. During interrogation of the aforesaid accused, the name
of the petitioner surfaced. It was stated that the car in which
he had been caught belonged to the petitioner-accused and
the car had been given to him for onward delivery to a special
person, code-named ‘Baba Jani’. On the same day, the petitioner
was arrested from his shop “R.C. Creations” at Crystal Chowk,
Amritsar. Pursuant to his disclosure statements, recovery of,
inter alia, narcotic substance-heroin was made and a second
recovery was made on 07.02.2020 and further recoveries were
made pursuant to disclosure statement dated 11.02.2020. FIR
No.23/2020 dated 31.01.2020 was registered under Sections
21, 25, 27A, 29 of NDPS Act at Police Station STF, District STF
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1749
Ankush Vipan Kapoor v. National Investigation Agency
Wing, Amritsar on the statement of Rashpal Singh AIG, STF
Border Range, Amritsar. On conclusion of the investigation in
both the aforesaid FIRs, final reports were presented before
the courts of competent jurisdiction.
2.2 CRM-M No.23889 of 2021 and CRM-M No.27365 of 2021 for
seeking grant of regular bail were allowed by the High Court
by orders dated 05.07.2021 and 21.09.2021 respectively and
the petitioner herein was released on bail.
2.3 Even prior to the registration of the aforementioned FIRs,
another case bearing FIR No.01/2018 under Section 8(c),
21(c), 24, 25, 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act had already been
registered on 12.08.2018 at Police Station Anti-Terrorist Squad
(PS ATS), Ahmedabad, Gujarat involving a criminal conspiracy
by the arrested accused therein, inter alia, including Sukhbir
Singh alias Happy (A-10). This FIR pertains to smuggling and
distribution of 500 kgs of narcotics, which appears to have been
illicitly transported from Pakistan to Gujarat via the sea route.
2.4 Having regard to the seriousness and scale of the offences in
the aforementioned case registered in the State of Gujarat, the
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, in exercise of
its powers under Sections 6 and 8 of the National Investigation
Agency, 2008 (for short, “NIA Act”) transferred the investigation of
the aforesaid case to NIA. Consequently, the NIA re-registered the
case as RC/26/2020/NIA/DLI dated 02.07.2020 under Sections
8(c), 21(c), 24, 25, 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act and Sections
17 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for
short, “UAPA”) and took over the investigation from ATS Gujarat.
2.5 During further investigation by NIA, it emerged that accused
Sukhbir Singh alias Happy had been arrested by STF Punjab
in FIR No.20/2020 dated 29.01.2020 under certain provision
of the NDPS Act and Arms Act, 1959 registered at PS STF,
SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab and after recovery being made,
FIR No.23/2020 dated 30.01.2020 had been registered under
certain provisions of the NDPS Act at Police Station STF, District
STF Wing, Amritsar, Punjab. The NIA took custody of Sukhbir
Singh alias Happy from the NIA Special Court at Ahmedabad,
Gujarat after being produced by the Amritsar jail authorities
in pursuance of production warrants. During his custodial
1750 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
interrogation, accused Sukhbir Singh alias Happy revealed the
involvement of the petitioner herein and his other close aides
in the drugs syndicate involved in the transportation, storage,
purification, delivery and sale of drugs in Amritsar.
2.6 The petitioner herein moved an application for grant of
anticipatory bail before NIA Special Court at Ahmedabad,
Gujarat which was dismissed. The High Court vide order dated
26.09.2022 also dismissed his prayer for anticipatory bail. The
NIA on completion of investigation, submitted challan before the
NIA Special Court at Ahmedabad which has framed charges
under Sections 17 and 18 of UAPA against 24 accused.
On 02.05.2023, the NIA moved an application before the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana seeking cancellation of bail granted
to the petitioner in FIR No.20/2020.
2.7 On hearing the submissions on behalf of the NIA as well as
on behalf of the petitioner accused, the High Court considered
the case in light of Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (for short “CrPC”) and the judgments applicable to the
facts of the case. The High Court noted that the petitioner was
granted bail by it on 05.07.2021 but thereafter on 13.10.2021, the
Central Government in exercise of its powers under sub-section
(5) of Section 6 read with Section 8 of the NIA Act transferred
the investigation to NIA, which was already investigating the
matter involving FIR No.01/2018 under Sections 8(c), 21(c),
24, 25, 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act registered on 12.08.2018
at PS ATS, Ahmedabad, Gujarat. Similarly, investigation of the
connected case bearing FIR No.23/2020 dated 31.01.2020
under Sections 21, 25, 27A, 29 of the NDPS Act registered at
Police Station STF, District STF Wing, Amritsar, Punjab was
also transferred to the NIA by the Central Government by order
dated 28.06.2021. The High Court noted the contention that
there was huge recovery of heroin made by ATS Gujarat as
well as STS Punjab in FIR No.20/2020 and FIR No.23/2020,
and therefore, the link between the petitioner herein to the said
recovery of heroin effected in Gujarat or with the drug cartel
allegedly in operation, had to be investigated. That in fact, NIA
Special Court, Ahmedabad had framed charges against 24
accused including Sukhbir Singh alias Happy under Sections
17 and 18 of the UAPA, among other offences.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1751
Ankush Vipan Kapoor v. National Investigation Agency
2.8 Therefore, the High Court found grave allegations of cross-
border narco-terrorism involving a huge recovery of 500 kgs
of heroin, which was stated to have been smuggled into India
through Gujarat and then into Punjab in a meticulously planned
manner. In order to seriously investigate the offences and the
drug syndicate that the petitioner accused and others had a
role in, it was necessary that the investigation be carried out
with custodial interrogation. Hence, the submission of the
petitioner herein that he would cooperate with the investigation
and therefore taking him into custody was unnecessary was
not accepted by the High Court. Consequently, the High Court
allowed the application filed by NIA and cancelled the bail
granted by it by order dated 05.07.2021 so as to enable the
NIA to thoroughly investigate into the offences which had been
added into the offences alleged.
Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has
preferred the instant Special Leave Petition.
Writ Petition (Crl.) No.168 of 2024:
3. This writ petition was preferred by the petitioner challenging the action
of the Central Government in issuance of Orders dated 29.06.2020,
28.06.2021 and 12.10.2021 by the Ministry of Home Affairs, CTCR
Division, North Block, New Delhi, wherein the investigation of FIRs
which were primarily registered under the NDPS Act has been
entrusted to NIA in exercise of powers under Section 6(5) and
Section 8 of the NIA Act.
3.1 At the outset, it is necessary to note that Section 3(2) of the
NIA Act provides that subject to any orders of the Central
Government, the NIA shall have throughout India in relation to
the investigation of Scheduled Offences and arrest of persons
concerned in such offences, all the powers, duties, privileges
and liabilities which police officers have in connection with the
investigation of offences committed therein. Importantly, while
the offences under the NDPS Act do not find a place under the
NIA Act, UAPA is mentioned in the Schedule to the NIA Act.
Therefore, if any provision of the UAPA is attracted, the NIA
could be directed to exercise jurisdiction to investigate the same.
1752 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
3.2 The petitioner-accused is alleged to be one of the main accused
operating an organized syndicate engaged in cross-border
smuggling of drugs and narcotics substances allegedly making
their way into India through Pakistan, Afghanistan and other
countries. The petitioner-accused was first implicated only in
FIR No. 20/2020 dated 29.01.2020 registered with PS STF, SAS
Nagar, Mohali, Punjab under various provisions of the NDPS
Act, but for a comprehensive view of the matter it is necessary
to note that FIR No.01/2018 dated 12.08.2018 registered with
PS ATS, Ahmedabad, Gujarat is also relevant to the instant writ
petition. It was borne out in investigation in FIR No.01/2018
that Aziz Abdul Bhagad, Rafique Adam Sumra, Nazir Ahmed,
Arshad Abdul Razaq Sota @ Raju Dubai, Manzoor Ahmed,
Razak Aadam Sumra, Karim Md Siraj and Sunil Vithal Barmase
and some other accused persons had conspired to smuggle
and distribute about 500 kgs of heroin from Pakistan to Gujarat
by sea. Chargesheet in respect of FIR No. 01/2018 registered
with PS ATS, Ahmedabad, Gujarat was filed on 09.01.2019.
3.3 Subsequently, on 29.01.2020, FIR No. 20/2020 was registered
with PS STF, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab on the statement
of one Rachpal Singh, AIG, STF Border Range, Amritsar.
Aforesaid FIR notes that secret information was received that
one person named Sukhbir Singh alias Happy who supplies
heroin in Punjab as well as other States was moving in his
car with large quantity of heroin and illegal weapons. It was
noted that the same person has links with smugglers in India
as well as outside of India. Acting on the said information, the
Special Task Force (STF) arrested him and upon search, one
revolver of 0.32 bore along with live cartridges and six boxes
of heroin weighing 5.690 kilograms were recovered. During
interrogation, Sukhbir Singh alias Happy revealed that the car
he was found in belonged to the petitioner-accused herein. On
the same day, i.e., 29.01.2020, the petitioner-accused herein
was arrested in pursuance of the statement of Sukhbir alias
Happy. At the house of petitioner-accused, the following items
were recovered:
i. heroin weighing 3.25 kgs.;
ii. 3 transparent plastic bags along with a can containing
ammonia solution;
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1753
Ankush Vipan Kapoor v. National Investigation Agency
iii. one plastic bag containing 500 grams of codeine charcoal
powder; and
iv. 500 ml of hydrochloride acid.
3.4 Subsequently, on 31.01.2020, on the basis of the statement
of Sh. Rashpal Singh AIG, STF Border Range, Amritsar,
FIR No. 23/2020 was registered with PS STF, SAS Nagar,
Mohali, Punjab. It is alleged that secret information was
received that the petitioner-accused along with companions
Sukhwinder Singh, Major Singh, Tamana Gupta, Afghanistani
Arman Bashar Mall, Simarjeet Singh Sandhu and others sell
contraband drugs to customers for profit and to that end they
had made a secret storage in the area of Sultanwind, Amritsar.
Subsequent to the registration of FIR No.23/2020, recovery of
188.95 kgs Dextromethorphan Powder, 25.965 kgs Caffeine, 3
kgs Charcoal, 207.12 kgs intoxicant liquid chemical and other
instruments for preparation of heroin was effected from House
No.127-130, Akash Vihar, Sultanwind, Amritsar. It was alleged
that the accused in the said FIR had established connections
with smugglers from Dubai, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
3.5 On 11.06.2020, Chargesheet was filed in FIR No. 20/2020 under
Sections 21, 25, 27-A, 29, 61, 85 of the NDPS Act and under
Sections 30, 54, 59 of the Arms Act. Similarly, Chargesheet was
filed in FIR No.23/2020 under Sections 21, 25, 27-A, 29, 61, 85
of the NDPS Act. Both the above chargesheets were, inter alia,
against the petitioner herein. Notably, in both Chargesheets, at
column 2 i.e. ‘Accused who were not challaned’ one “Simarjeet
Singh Sandhu” is mentioned.
3.6 The Central Government upon receipt of information regarding
FIR No.01/2018 registered with PS ATS, Ahmedabad, Gujarat
formed an opinion that a Schedule Offence has been committed
and Sections 17 and 18 of the UAPA – (Scheduled Offence
under the NIA Act) – are attracted and therefore the Central
Government in exercise of powers under Section 6(5) read with
Section 8 of the NIA Act directed NIA to take up the investigation
by Order dated 29.06.2020. This is the first order impugned in
this writ petition.
3.7 It is pertinent to note that although the offences attracted in the
FIR and Chargesheet fall under various sections of the NDPS
1754 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Act, the Central Government was of the opinion that Sections 17
and 18 of the UAPA were are also attracted. Consequently, FIR
No. 01/2018 dated 12.08.2018 was renumbered and reregistered
as FIR No. RC 26/2020/NIA/DLI dated 02.07.2020. It is crucial
that after two years of the first FIR i.e. FIR No.01/2018 registered
with PS ATS, Ahmedabad, Gujarat and some months after
the registration of the FIR No.20/2020 and FIR No.23/2020 in
Punjab, the NIA was directed to investigate FIR No.01/2018.
The re-numbered FIR dated 02.07.2020 registered by NIA notes
the following as wanted accused persons under column no.7:
“x x x x
Wanted accused persons:
(9) Sahid Kasambhal Sumra, Res Mandvi, Bandar
Road, Bachu Harji na vada, Kutch-West.
(10) Simaranjitsingh Sarabjitsingh Sandhu Res.
A/288, Ranajeet Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab.
(11) Haji Sab Bhaijan, Res Pakistan, whose full name
and address not known
(12) Pakistani citizen Nabibax, Res. Dubai, whose
full name and address not known
(13) Pakistani Persons Haji sab @ Bhaijan; who
brought the heroin in ship through sea route from
Pakistan, their names and address not known.”
(emphasis supplied)
3.8 Notably, wanted accused No.10 in the re-numbered FIR
registered by NIA on 02.07.2020 is a co-accused in the FIRs
registered in Punjab and, as already noted, is marked as
‘Accused Persons not challaned’ in chargesheets filed under
Section 173 of the CrPC in both the cases.
3.9 Further investigation by NIA revealed a larger conspiracy
of smuggling huge quantity of heroin from Pakistan to India
that was funding terrorist activities. Therefore on 07.08.2020,
Chargesheet was dispatched by NIA under Section 120-B IPC,
Sections 8(c), 21(c), 24, 25, 27(A) and 29 of the NDPS Act and
Sections 17 & 18 of the UAPA in the Court of Special Judge at
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1755
Ankush Vipan Kapoor v. National Investigation Agency
Ahmedabad, constituted under NIA Act, 2008. The aforesaid
Chargesheet listed Simarjeet Singh Sandhu as wanted accused
No.2 as allegedly substantial quantity of heroin was delivered
to his aides at a rented godown of Simarjeet Singh Sandhu
at Aithor Village, near Unjha, Gujarat, where it was hidden for
further transport to Amritsar, Punjab.
3.10 Thereafter, another Order was issued by the Ministry of Home
Affairs on 28.06.2021 exercising its powers under Section 6(5)
and Section 8 of the NIA Act to direct NIA to investigate FIR No.
23/2020 dated 31.01.2020. The Order notes that vide ID No.
18/PD/03cases/ATS/NIA/DLI/2020/(468)/7662 dated 18.6.2021,
the NIA forwarded a report stating that FIR No.23/2020 under
Sections 21, 25, 27 & 29 of NDPS Act is an offence connected
to FIR No.01/2018, which was already transferred to NIA, and
therefore NIA should be directed to investigate FIR No.23/2020
as well. This is the second order impugned in this writ petition.
3.11 In the meanwhile, the petitioner-accused had moved the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana seeking regular bail in connection
with FIR No.20/2020. On 05.07.2021, petitioner was enlarged on
bail by the High Court in connection with FIR No.20/2020 and
on 21.09.2021, the High Court similarly enlarged the petitioner
on bail in connection with FIR No.23/2020.
3.12 Notably, the first FIR registered with PS STF, SAS Nagar, Mohali,
Punjab bearing No. 20/2020 was transferred to NIA later on
13.10.2021 vide Order of Ministry of Home Affairs, which notes
that FIR No.20/2020 is an offence connected to FIR No.01/2018
and thereby in exercise of powers under Section 6(5) read with
Section 8 of the NIA Act, the NIA was directed to investigate
the same. This is the third FIR assailed in this writ petition.
3.13 In these circumstances, petitioner-accused preferred Criminal
Misc. Application No. 13/2022 before the Court of Special Judge
constituted under the NIA Act seeking anticipatory bail u/s 438,
Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No. 01/2018 registered by PS
ATS, Ahmedabad, Gujarat renumbered as FIR No. RC 26/2020/
NIA/DLI dated 02.07.2020. However, the same was rejected
vide order dated 06.05.2022.
3.14 Furthermore, on 02.05.2023, respondent-NIA filed application
CRM-M No.24743/2023 before High Court of Punjab and
1756 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Haryana at Chandigarh seeking cancellation of regular bail
granted to the petitioner in FIR No.20/2020 registered at PS
STF, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab. Vide Order dated 29.01.2024,
the High Court allowed the application preferred by NIA and
noted that the Gujarat case involving cross border transportation
of 500 kgs of heroin and the cases registered in Punjab were
linked and were both being investigated jointly by the NIA. It
was also held that there is a need for thorough investigation,
including custodial interrogation of the petitioner-accused. This
was especially emphasized in light of the fact that additional
offenses under Sections 17 and 18 of the UAPA had been added
against co-accused “Simarjeet Singh Sandhu”.
3.15 Aggrieved by the order of the High Court cancelling bail,
petitioner-accused preferred SLP (Crl.) No. 2819/2024, wherein
this Court granted the petitioner-accused interim protection
from coercive steps. In addition, the present writ petition has
been preferred challenging the aforesaid three Orders of the
Central Government entrusting upon the NIA to investigate the
aforesaid offences under the NDPS Act as connected offences.
Submissions of the Parties:
4. Sri Siddhartha Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner has premised his arguments on the basis of Article 21 of
the Constitution of India which states that no person shall be deprived
of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure
established by law. On the strength of Article 21, the petitioner
herein has questioned the orders at Annexures P-4, P-6 and P-9,
dated 29.06.2020, 28.06.2021, 12.10.2021 respectively, passed
by respondent No.1, as being illegal and ultra vires the provisions
of the NIA Act. Sri Dave submitted that the petitioner also has the
protection of laws under Article 14 of the Constitution. That in the
instant case alleging offences said to have been committed by the
petitioner under the NDPS Act which are non-scheduled offences,
the petitioner is sought to be investigated and proceeded against
under Scheduled Offences, namely, Sections 17 and 18 of the
UAPA (under the provisions of the NIA Act). It was submitted that
the investigation into the FIRs registered under the provisions of the
NDPS Act vis-à-vis the petitioner, namely, FIR No.20/2020 dated
29.01.2020 and FIR No.23/2020 dated 31.01.2020, vide orders dated
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1757
Ankush Vipan Kapoor v. National Investigation Agency
28.06.2021 (Annexure P-6) and order dated 12.10.2021 (Annexure
P-9) respectively, on the basis of Section 8 of the NIA Act, is illegal
and ultra vires the provisions of Section 6 of the NIA Act.
4.1 In this context, learned senior counsel drew our attention to
Section 6 of the NIA Act and with particular reference to sub-
sections (1) to (4) of Section 6 and sub-section (5) of Section 6
in order to contend that there are two ways in which investigation
could be handed over to the NIA to investigate a Scheduled
Offence under Section 6 of the NIA Act. That the schedule to
the NIA Act prescribes the offences under various Acts including
some offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). That in
the instant case, sub-section (5) of Section 6 was invoked by
the Central Government to suo motu refer the investigation of
the aforesaid offences registered against the petitioner herein
under the NDPS Act by virtue of Annexures P-6 and P-9 which
are non-scheduled offences by linking them to FIR No.1/2018
dated 12.08.2018 registered at PS ATS, Ahmedabad, Gujarat,
under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 24, 25, 27A and 29 of the NDPS
Act and Sections 17 and 18 of the UAPA against some other
accused who have nothing to do with the petitioner herein. That
merely because by order dated 29.6.2020 (Annexure P-4) in
light of the aforesaid FIR, Sections 17 and 18 of UAPA being
Scheduled Offences were said to have been attracted and the
said FIR was directed to be investigated by the NIA, Section
8 could not have been invoked by the Central Government to
link the offences registered against the petitioner under the
NDPS Act with Sections 17 and 18 of the UAPA Act, thereby
handing over the investigation of the offences which had
been investigated by the Punjab State Police to the NIA vide
Annexures P-6 and P-9. Hence, Annexures P-4, P-6 and P-9
are assailed in the writ petitions. It was contended that the
investigation that was handed over to the NIA by the Central
Government by virtue of Annexure P-4 order dated 29.6.2020
was in respect of FIR No.1/2018 dated 12.08.2018 registered
at PS ATS, Ahmedabad, Gujarat under certain provisions of the
NDPS Act on the premise that Sections 17 and 18 of the UAPA
Act were also attracted in the case against certain accused
persons. However, those accused persons are not accused in
the FIR registered against the petitioner herein. In the absence
1758 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
of there being any connection either with the accused against
whom offences have been registered by the Gujarat State
Police or with any Scheduled Offence being registered against
the petitioner herein, Section 8 of the NIA Act could not have
been invoked against the petitioner as if he had committed a
Scheduled Offence.
4.2 Referring to Section 8, learned Senior Counsel Sri Dave
submitted that the said Section would be available only when
an accused who has been investigated for a Scheduled
Offence can also be investigated for any other offence which
the accused is alleged to have committed only if the other
offence is connected with the Scheduled Offence. In the instant
case, the petitioner was not being investigated by the Punjab
State Police for any Scheduled Offence but for non-scheduled
offences under the provisions of the NDPS Act. The petitioner
was not being investigated in respect of FIR No.01/2018 dated
12.08.2018 registered at PS ATS, Ahmedabad, Gujarat which
is also in respect of non-scheduled offences. However, while
handing over the investigation of the aforesaid FIR to the NIA,
the Central Government by order dated 29.6.2020 invoked
Sections 17 and 18 of the UAPA to connect the offences under
the NDPS Act (non-scheduled offences) in order to enable the
investigation of the accused named in FIR No.1/2018 dated
12.08.2018 registered at PS ATS, Ahmedabad, Gujarat for
offences under the NDPS Act as well as under Sections 17
and 18 UAPA Act which are Scheduled Offences. It appears
that while carrying out the investigation pursuant to order
dated 29.6.2020 (Annexure P-4), the NIA forwarded reports to
the Central Government with regard to FIR No.23/2020 dated
31.01.2020 at Police Station STF, District STF Wing, Amritsar,
Punjab as well as FIR No.20/2020 dated 29.01.2020 registered
at PS STF SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab against the petitioner
herein and consequently, under Section 8 of the NIA Act, orders
at Annexures P-6 and P-9 have been passed by invoking the
offences under the UAPA also against the petitioner herein. It
was submitted that such a procedure is impermissible in the
absence of there being any link or connection between the
accused persons in FIR No.1/2018 dated 12.08.2018 at PS
ATS, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, registered under certain provisions
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1759
Ankush Vipan Kapoor v. National Investigation Agency
of the NDPS Act and FIR No.23/2020 dated 31.01.2020 at
Police Station STF, District STF Wing, Amritsar, Punjab as well
as FIR No.20/ 2020 dated 29.01.2020 registered at PS STF,
SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab registered under certain provisions
of the NDPS Act against the petitioner herein.
4.3 It was further submitted that offences alleged against the
petitioner herein under the NDPS Act do not relate to the persons
accused by the Gujarat State Police and therefore there is no
connection of the petitioner with any Scheduled Offence. It was
submitted that the Scheduled Offences have been invoked as
against the persons accused by the Gujarat Police at the time
of handing over of the investigation to the NIA but the same
could not have been replicated insofar as the petitioner herein
is concerned. It was contended that in the absence of there
being any connection between the offences alleged against the
petitioner herein with the offences alleged against the accused
by the Gujarat Police, the invocation of Section 8 of the NIA
Act for passing of the impugned orders is illegal and arbitrary
and in total violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Learned senior counsel submitted that the writ petitions may
be allowed and the orders issued at Annexures P-4, P-6 and
P-9 insofar as the petitioner is concerned, may be quashed
and set-aside.
4.4 Learned senior counsel, Sri Dave, further submitted that the
High Court which has granted bail to the petitioner herein vide
order dated 05.07.2021 could not have, at the instance of NIA,
cancelled the bail by the impugned order dated 29.01.2024.
He submitted that if the arguments advanced on behalf of the
petitioner in the writ petition are accepted by this Court and
the orders at Annexures P-4, P-6 and P-9 assailed in the writ
petition are quashed, then the impugned order of cancellation
of bail by the High Court at the instance of the respondent NIA
would have to be quashed. Consequently, the earlier order of
the High Court granting bail would revive. The petitioner is
willing to cooperate with the trial of the offences alleged against
him under the NDPS Act before the Special Court in Punjab
itself. Consequently, it is submitted that the transfer of the FIR
and trial to Special Court, Ahmedabad would also have to be
1760 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
quashed. Learned senior counsel submitted that the arguments
advanced in the writ petition be read as part and parcel of the
arguments in the Special Leave Petition and the impugned order
of cancellation of the petitioner’s bail may be set-aside and the
earlier order dated 05.07.2021 granting bail may be revived.
4.5 On the other hand, learned ASG Ms. Aishwarya Bhati appearing
for respondent Union of India and NIA, with reference to the
counter affidavit filed on behalf of Union of India at the outset
submitted that the writ petition is misconceived; that the
impugned order dated 29.6.2020 (Annexure P-4) was issued by
the Central Government by invoking sub-section (5) of Section 6
of the NIA Act; the petitioner herein cannot have any grievance
with regard to the said order inasmuch as the petitioner is not
named in FIR No.1/2018 dated 12.08.2018; however, during
the investigation of the Scheduled Offences under Sections
17 and 18 of the UAPA Act which are also connected with FIR
No.01/2018 dated 12.08.2018 at PS ATS, Ahmedabad, Gujarat,
under certain provisions of the NDPS Act (non-scheduled
offences), it emerged that the offences alleged against the
petitioner herein in FIR No.23/2020 and FIR No.20/2020 were
connected to the Scheduled Offences under Sections 17 and 18
of the UAPA which were already being investigated by the NIA
and, therefore, orders at Annexures P-6 and P-9 were issued.
4.6 With reference to the role of the petitioner, it was submitted by
Ms. Bhati that he is part of the narco-terror network of smuggling
drugs into India, transporting from Gujarat to Punjab, storing
the same and purifying in Amritsar and Ludhiana for further
distribution to various parts of Punjab and the National Capital,
New Delhi and its surrounding areas. That the petitioner is
alleged to have received for purification 500 kgs of narcotic
drugs of heroin from Sukhbir Singh alias Happy (A-10) and
his associates on the directions of Italy based wanted accused
Simarjeet Singh Sandhu (WA-2). The charge-sheet filed by
Police Station STF, District STF Wing, Amritsar, Punjab in FIR
No.23/2020 reveals that the petitioner herein along with accused
Sukhbir alias Happy (A10) had brought chemicals at the behest
of accused Simarjeet Singh Sandhu (WA-2) for refinement and
purification of heroin at Amritsar. With reference to the details
in the counter affidavit, it was pointed out by the learned ASG
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1761
Ankush Vipan Kapoor v. National Investigation Agency
that the petitioner herein is closely associated with the kingpin
and wanted accused Simarjeet Singh Sandhu (WA-2) and other
accused which fact has been corroborated by the disclosure
statements of other accused and the petitioner herein has
received huge sums of money for distribution and transporting of
narcotic drug heroin. That the NIA was already investigating FIR
No.01/2018 dated 12.08.2018 at PS ATS, Ahmedabad, Gujarat in
respect of certain accused including Sukhbir Singh alias Happy
(A-10) and during the course of said investigation, the role of
the petitioner was revealed, therefore, Orders at Annexures at
P-6 and P-9 were issued. There is a clear link and connection
between FIR No.1/2018 dated 12.08.2018 registered at PS ATS,
Ahmedabad, Gujarat which is registered against certain accused
persons under certain provisions of the NDPS Act wherein
the provisions of UAPA Act are also attracted. Therefore, the
Central Government directed the investigation of the aforesaid
FIR in connection with Sections 17 and 18 of the UAPA which
are Scheduled Offences; that the offences alleged against the
petitioner herein are also under the provisions of the NDPS
Act which are non-scheduled offences but those offences have
a connection with Sections 17 and 18 of the UAPA which are
Scheduled Offences inasmuch the investigation by the NIA of
the aforesaid Scheduled Offences has detected the link between
the petitioner herein with the accused in FIR No.01/2018 dated
12.08.2018 registered at PS ATS, Ahmedabad, Gujarat. That
in respect of that FIR, the Central Government had already
passed an order on 26.9.2020 invoking Sections 17 and 18
of the UAPA which are Scheduled Offences. Consequently,
there is a vital connection between the petitioner herein to the
aforesaid Scheduled Offences also. Hence, orders in Annexures
P-6 and P-9 were issued transferring the investigation of FIR
No.23/2020 dated 31.01.2020 at Police Station STF, District
STF Wing, Amritsar, Punjab as well as FIR No.20/2020 dated
29.01.2020 registered at PS STF, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab
lodged against the petitioner to the NIA to further investigate
the matter. Therefore, according to learned ASG, Section 8 has
been rightly applied in the case of the petitioner herein as the
offences alleged against the petitioner and other accused have
a connection with the Scheduled Offences under the UAPA and
there is no merit in this petition.
1762 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
4.7 Learned ASG further submitted that Section 14 of the NIA Act
empowers the Special Court to try any other offence which the
accused may be charged as if the offence which is being tried
is connected with any such other offence.
4.8 In light of the above discussions, the learned ASG prayed for
dismissal of the writ petition.
4.9 Learned ASG further submitted that the arguments advanced in
the writ petition may be read as part and parcel of the arguments
in the Special Leave Petition. Consequently, the NIA, having
jurisdiction to investigate the Scheduled Offences along with
connected offences (non-scheduled offences) in the instant case,
was justified in applying for cancellation of bail granted to the
petitioner herein. It is finally submitted that taking note of the
circumstances of the case and the entire gamut of facts involved,
the Punjab and Haryana High Court, by the impugned order, has
rightly cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner herein and the
same does not call for any interference by this Court as there are
no merits in the Special Leave Petition which may be dismissed.
National Investigation Agency, 2008:
5. Sections 3, 6, 7, 8 and 14 of the NIA Act are extracted as under:
“3. Constitution of National Investigation Agency.—
(1) Notwithstanding anything in the Police Act, 1861 (5 of
1861), the Central Government may constitute a special
agency to be called the National Investigation Agency for
investigation and prosecution of offences under the Acts
specified in the Schedule.
(2) Subject to any orders which the Central Government
may make in this behalf, officers of the Agency shall
have throughout India in relation to the investigation of
Scheduled Offences and arrest of persons concerned
in such offences, all the powers, duties, privileges and
liabilities which police officers have in connection with the
investigation of offences committed therein.
(3) Any officer of the Agency of, or above, the rank of Sub-
Inspector may, subject to any orders which the Central
Government may make in this behalf, exercise throughout
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1763
Ankush Vipan Kapoor v. National Investigation Agency
India, any of the powers of the officer-in-charge of a police
station in the area in which he is present for the time being
and when so exercising such powers shall, subject to any
such orders as aforesaid, be deemed to be an officer-in-
charge of a police station discharging the functions of such
an officer within the limits of his station.
x x x x
6. Investigation of Scheduled Offences.—(1) On receipt
of information and recording thereof under section 154 of
the Code relating to any Scheduled Offence the officer-
in-charge of the police station shall forward the report to
the State Government forthwith.
(2) On receipt of the report under sub-section (1), the
State Government shall forward the report to the Central
Government as expeditiously as possible.
(3) On receipt of report from the State Government,
the Central Government shall determine on the basis
of information made available by the State Government
or received from other sources, within fifteen days from
the date of receipt of the report, whether the offence is a
Scheduled Offence or not and also whether, having regard
to the gravity of the offence and other relevant factors, it
is a fit case to be investigated by the Agency.
(4) Where the Central Government is of the opinion that
the offence is a Scheduled Offence and it is a fit case to
be investigated by the Agency, it shall direct the Agency
to investigate the said offence.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, if
the Central Government is of the opinion that a Scheduled
Offence has been committed which is required to be
investigated under this Act, it may, suo motu, direct the
Agency to investigate the said offence.
(6) Where any direction has been given under sub-section
(4) or sub-section (5), the State Government and any police
officer of the State Government investigating the offence
shall not proceed with the investigation and shall forthwith
transmit the relevant documents and records to the Agency.
1764 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(7) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that till
the Agency takes up the investigation of the case, it shall
be the duty of the officer-in-charge of the police station to
continue the investigation.
(8) Where the Central Government is of the opinion that
a Scheduled Offence has been committed at any place
outside India to which this Act extends, it may direct the
Agency to register the case and take up investigation as
if such offence has been committed in India.
(9) For the purposes of sub-section (8), the Special Court
at New Delhi shall have the jurisdiction.
7. Power to transfer investigation to State Government.—
While investigating any offence under this Act, the Agency,
having regard to the gravity of the offence and other
relevant factors, may—
(a) if it is expedient to do so, request the State
Government to associate itself with the
investigation; or
(b) with the previous approval of the Central
Government transfer the case to the State
Government for investigation and trial of the
offence.
8. Power to investigate connected offences.—While
investigating any Scheduled Offence the Agency may
also investigate any other offence which the accused is
alleged to have committed if the offence is connected with
the Scheduled Offence.
x x x x
14. Powers of Special Courts with respect to other
offences.— (1) When trying any offence, a Special Court
may also try any other offence with which the accused
may, under the Code be charged, at the same trial if the
offence is connected with such other offence.
(2) If, in the course of any trial under this Act of any offence,
it is found that the accused person has committed any other
offence under this Act or under any other law, the Special
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1765
Ankush Vipan Kapoor v. National Investigation Agency
Court may convict such person of such other offence and
pass any sentence or award punishment authorised by
this Act or, as the case may be, under such other law.”
5.1 A perusal of the aforesaid provisions and the long title of the
NIA Act elucidates that the NIA Act was enacted to constitute a
national level investigation agency to investigate and prosecute
offences, inter alia, affecting the sovereignty, security and
integrity of India, and security of State.
5.2 Under Section 3(1), NIA has been constituted as “a special
agency” for the investigation and prosecution of offences
under the enactments specified in the Schedule to the NIA Act.
Importantly, Section 6 provides for the initiation of investigation
of Scheduled Offences by the NIA. While sub-sections
(1) to (4) lay down the framework for initiation of investigation
by NIA after a report is received from the State Government by
the Central Government, an exception to the procedure found
in sub-sections (1) to (4) is provided by sub-section (5). By
way of Section 6(5), the Parliament has entrusted overriding
power to the Central Government to suo motu direct NIA to
investigate an offence if the Central Government is of the
opinion that a Scheduled Offence has been committed under
the NIA Act and that such Scheduled Offence is required to be
investigated by NIA.
5.3 Sub-section (1) of Section 3 begins with a non-obstante clause
as notwithstanding anything in the Police Act, 1861, the Central
Government may constitute a special agency to be called
the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for investigation and
prosecution of offences under the Acts specified in the Schedule.
5.4 Sub-section (2) of Section 3 states that subject to any orders which
the Central Government may make, NIA shall have throughout
India and subject to any international treaty or domestic law of the
concerned authority, in relation to the investigation of Scheduled
Offences and arrest of persons concerned in such offences, all
the powers, duties, privileges and liabilities which police officers
have in connection with the investigation of offences committed
therein. Sub-section (3) of Section 3 states that subject to any
orders which the Central Government may make, any officer of
the NIA, of or above the rank of a Sub-Inspector, may exercise
1766 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
throughout India, any of the powers of the officer-in-charge of
a police station in the area in which he is present for the time
being and when so exercising such powers shall, subject to any
such orders as aforesaid, be deemed to be an officer-in-charge
of a police station discharging the functions of such an officer
within the limits of his station.
5.5 The superintendence of the NIA vests in the Central Government
vide sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the NIA Act. The NIA
is headed by Director General appointed by the Central
Government akin to the powers exercised by a Director General
of Police in respect of the police force in a State, as the Central
Government may specify in that behalf vide sub-section (2) of
Section 4.
5.6 Sub-sections (1) to (4) of Section 6 relate to receipt of
information and recording thereof under Section 154 of the
CrPC relating to any Scheduled Offence under the NIA Act by
any officer-in-charge of a police station being forwarded to the
State Government. The State Government would then forward
the report to the Central Government and on receipt of such
a report from the State Government, the Central Government
would determine whether the offence is a Scheduled Offence
or not and having regard to the gravity of the offence and other
relevant factors, whether it is a fit case to be investigated by
the NIA.
5.7 However, sub-section (5) of Section 6 is akin to an exception
to sub-section (1) to (4) of Section 6. It is a suo motu power
vested with the Central Government to direct investigation of
a Scheduled Offence which has been allegedly committed and
which is required to be investigated under the said Act by the
NIA. This power is de hors the power to be exercised by the
Central Government under sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section
6. That is why sub-section (5) of Section 6 begins with a non-
obstante clause and it is notwithstanding anything contained
in Section 6 that the suo motu power can be exercised by the
Central Government by forming an opinion. Sub-section (8) of
Section 6 states that where the Central Government is of the
opinion that a Scheduled Offence has been committed at any
place outside India to which the said Act extends, it may direct
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1767
Ankush Vipan Kapoor v. National Investigation Agency
the NIA to register the case and take up investigation as if
such offence has been committed in India. The powers under
sub-sections (5) are reserved to the Central Government to be
exercised by it suo motu when a Scheduled Offence has been
committed in India or overseas to which the said Act applies,
when it can on the basis of its opinion formed, direct the NIA to
investigate the said offence. In fact, in the case of an offence
committed outside India to which NIA Act extends, the Central
Government can direct the NIA to register the case as well as take
up investigation as if such offence has been committed in India.
5.8 Section 8 states that while investigating any Scheduled Offence
the NIA may also investigate any other offence which the accused
is alleged to have committed if the offence is connected with the
Scheduled Offence. The key words in Section 8 are “connected
with the Scheduled Offence”. Therefore, what is necessary
to confer power on the NIA to investigate any other offence
apart from a Scheduled Offence which has been directed to be
investigated by it, “is the connection of” any other offence with the
Scheduled Offence. The expression “any other offence” is wide
and expansive in nature. The connection with the Scheduled
Offence could be by any other Scheduled Offence under the
NIA Act or any other offence which may not be a Scheduled
Offence under the provisions of NIA Act but nevertheless has
a connection with the Scheduled Offence under the provisions
of the NIA Act.
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967:
6. Under the Schedule to the NIA Act, inter alia, the offences under
the UAPA are Scheduled Offences. Section 2(1)(g) of the NIA Act
defines Scheduled Offence to mean an offence specified in the
Schedule to the NIA Act.
6.1 The UAPA in Chapter IV defines a terrorist act in Section 15
and punishment for raising fund for a terrorist act in Section
17 while punishment for a terrorist act is under Section 16.
Section 18 of UAPA speaks about punishment for conspiracy.
Sections 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the UAPA are extracted
as under:
1768 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
“15. Terrorist Act.- (1) Whoever does any act with
intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity,
integrity, security, economic security, or sovereignty
of India or with intent to strike terror or likely to strike
terror in the people or any section of the people in
India or in any foreign country,--
(a) by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive
substances or inflammable substances or firearms
or other lethal weapons or poisonous or noxious
gases or other chemicals or by any other substances
(whether biological radioactive, nuclear or otherwise)
of a hazardous nature or by any other means of
whatever nature to cause or likely to cause-
(i) death of, or injuries to, any person or
persons; or
(ii) loss of, or damage to, or destruction of,
property; ordisruption of any supplies or
services essential to the life of the community
in India or in any foreign country; or
(iiia) damage to, the monetary stability of
India by way of production or smuggling
or circulation of high quality counterfeit
Indian paper currency, coin or of any other
material; or
(iv) damage or destruction of any property
in India or in a foreign country used or
intended to be used for the defence of India
or in connection with any other purposes
of the Government of India, any State
Government or any of their agencies; or
(b) overawes by means of criminal force or the show
of criminal force or attempts to do so or causes death
of any public functionary or attempts to cause death
of any public functionary; or
(c) detains, kidnaps or abducts any person and
threatens to kill or injure such person or does any
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1769
Ankush Vipan Kapoor v. National Investigation Agency
other act in order to compel the Government of India,
any State Government or the Government of a foreign
country or an international or inter-governmental
organisation or any other person to do or abstain
from doing any act; or commits a terrorist act.
Explanation.--For the purpose of this sub-section,
(a) “public functionary” means the constitutional
authorities or any other functionary notified in the
Official Gazette by the Central Government as public
functionary;
(b) “high quality counterfeit Indian currency” means
the counterfeit currency as may be declared after
examination by an authorised or notified forensic
authority that such currency imitates or compromises
with the key security features as specified in the
Third Schedule.
(2) The terrorist act includes an act which constitutes
an offence within the scope of, and as defined in any
of the treaties specified in the Second Schedule.
16. Punishment for terrorist act-(1) Whoever
commits a terrorist act shall,-
(a) if such act has resulted in the death of any person,
be punishable with death or imprisonment for life,
and shall also be liable to fine;
(b) in any other case, be punishable with imprisonment
for a term which shall not be less than five years but
which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall
also be liable to fine.
17. Punishment for raising funds for terrorist act.-
Whoever, in India or in a foreign country, directly or
indirectly, raises or provides funds or collects funds,
whether from a legitimate or illegitimate source, from
any person or persons or attempts to provide to, or
raises or collects funds for any person or persons,
knowing that such funds are likely to be used, in full
or in part by such person or persons or by a terrorist
1770 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
organisation or by a terrorist gang or by an individual
terrorist to commit a terrorist act, notwithstanding
whether such funds were actually used or not for
commission of such act, shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than
five years but which may extend to imprisonment for
life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.—For the purpose of this section,—
(a) participating, organising or directing in any of the
acts stated therein shall constitute an offence;
(b) raising funds shall include raising or collecting or
providing funds through production or smuggling
or circulation of high-quality counterfeit Indian
currency; and
(c) raising or collecting or providing funds, in any
manner for the benefit of, or, to an individual
terrorist, terrorist gang or terrorist organisation
for the purpose not specifically covered under
section 15 shall also be construed as an offence.
18. Punishment for conspiracy, etc.—Whoever
conspires or attempts to commit, or advocates, abets,
advises or incites, directs or knowingly facilitates the
commission of, a terrorist act or any act preparatory to
the commission of a terrorist act, shall be punishable
with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less
than five years but which may extend to imprisonment
for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
Analysis:
7. Thus, if the provisions of Sections 17 and 18 of the UAPA are attracted
in a given case being Scheduled Offences under the NIA Act, the
Central Government, if it is of the opinion that such Offences have
been committed which are required to be investigated under the Act,
may under sub-section (5) of Section 6 of the said Act, in exercise
of its suo motu power direct the NIA to investigate the Scheduled
Offences. But while investigating such Scheduled Offences, the NIA
can also investigate any other offence which the accused is alleged
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1771
Ankush Vipan Kapoor v. National Investigation Agency
to have committed provided the other offence is connected with a
Scheduled Offence. Applying the aforesaid provision to the facts
of the present case, it is held that while investigating the offences
under Sections 17 and 18 of UAPA (Scheduled Offences) by virtue of
sub-section (5) of Section 6, under Section 8 any other offence such
as (an offence under the NDPS Act connected with the Scheduled
Offences (Sections 17 and 18 of the UAPA in the instant case) could
also be investigated. But, such other offence must have a connection
with the Scheduled Offence.
7.1 Furthermore, in our view, the investigation could also be of a
person accused of an offence which has a connection with a
Scheduled Offence which is being investigated on the basis of
Section 8 of the NIA Act. Then, the Central Government may
also direct any such offence also to be investigated on receipt of
a report from the NIA as against any accused when it is already
investigating a Scheduled Offence against a certain accused,
as in the instant case provided that offence has a connection
with the Scheduled Offence. Also, the NIA has been conferred
wide powers under Section 8 of the NIA Act to also investigate
into any other offence committed by the accused in respect of
whom a Scheduled Offence is being investigated provided the
offence is connected with the Scheduled Offence under the
Schedule to the NIA Act.
7.2 The interpretive challenge that has come to the forefront in this
case is due to the fact that there are certain co-accused persons
who are present in FIR No.20/2020 and FIR No.23/2020 who
are not accused under the prior FIR No. 01/2018 registered in
the State of Gujarat. Therefore, the question is whether, the NIA
can investigate only the same accused who is present in the NIA
investigation qua Scheduled Offences and for non-scheduled
offence by virtue of Section 8 of the NIA Act. In other words,
can the NIA investigate any other accused person who, although
not being investigated for any Scheduled Offences could be
investigated by NIA because there exists a link between the
two namely, Scheduled and non-scheduled offences, thereby
connecting every co-accused.
7.3 On a plain reading of Section 8, it is clear that the said Section
has to be read in continuation of what has been stated in
sub-section (5) of Section 6 of the NIA Act. Once the Central
1772 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Government directs the NIA to investigate a Scheduled Offence
and during the course of such investigation of a Scheduled
Offence against an accused, it becomes necessary for the NIA
to also investigate any other offence which the said accused
is alleged to have committed, then such offence could also be
investigated provided that other offence to be investigated is
connected with the Scheduled Offence.
7.4 However, in our view, the expression “the accused” in Section 8 of
the NIA Act needs to be interpreted contextually. Learned senior
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said expression has
to be read narrowly and as per its plain meaning as referring
to only “the accused” in respect of whom a Scheduled Offence
is being investigated by the NIA and if such an accused
has committed any other offence which is connected to the
Scheduled Offence then such other offence could also be
investigated by the NIA provided there is a connection with the
Scheduled Offence. In other words, the argument was, that in
the first place, the investigation must be of “the accused” who
is accused of a Scheduled Offence and not any other accused.
Next, it is only in respect of such an accused if any other offence
is alleged to have been committed by him which is connected
with the Scheduled Offence, which could also be investigated
by the NIA on the strength of Section 8 of the NIA Act.
7.5 We do not think that such a narrow interpretation could be given
to the expression “the accused” in Section 8 of the NIA Act to
not include any other accused. The expression “Agency may
also investigate any other offence which the accused is alleged
to have committed” has no doubt to be read with the rigour of “if
the offence is connected with the Scheduled Offence”. In other
words, if any other offence is connected with the Scheduled
Offence, then the NIA may investigate such other offence which
the accused is alleged to have committed provided there is a
connection of such other offence with the Scheduled Offence.
7.6 The question is, whether, the expression “the accused” in
Section 8 of the NIA Act has to refer to only the accused in
respect of whom a Scheduled Offence is being investigated or
it could include any other accused whose name would emerge
during the course of investigation of a Scheduled Offence
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1773
Ankush Vipan Kapoor v. National Investigation Agency
and who has committed an offence which has a connection
with the Scheduled Offence. In our view, the expression “the
accused” in Section 8 of the NIA Act cannot be restricted in
its meaning and connotation to only the accused in respect
of whom investigation is being carried out pursuant to sub-
sections (4) and (5) of Section 6 of the NIA Act in respect of a
Scheduled Offence. It could also include any other accused who
has committed any other offence provided that other offence
committed by any other accused has a connection or a nexus
with the Scheduled Offence which is detected during the course
of investigation of any Scheduled Offence. More importantly,
in the case of any other accused, the offences alleged need
not be Scheduled Offences, it could be any offence but must
necessarily have a connection with the Scheduled Offence.
In such an event, on the basis of Section 8 of the NIA Act,
a report may be made to the Central Government which can
direct investigation against any other accused (i.e., an accused
other than the accused who is being investigated) provided
it has a connection with the Scheduled Offence. In such a
contingency, the Central Government while invoking sub-section
(5) of Section 6 read with Section 8 of the NIA Act can direct
investigation of any other accused alleging he has committed
an offence which is connected with the Scheduled Offence
already being investigated. On such a direction by the Central
Government the NIA can assume jurisdiction to investigate any
other accused on the basis that he has committed an offence
which has to be investigated along with the Scheduled Offence
already under investigation.
7.7 The reasons for holding so shall be discussed. One reason
being that Section 8 of the NIA Act applies not only when it is
acting under sub-section (5) of Section 6 of the NIA Act; it also
applies to sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the NIA Act where the
Central Government acts on the receipt of a report from the State
Government when information received by the officer-in-charge
of the Police Station relates to any Scheduled Offence and
the State Government has forwarded the report to the Central
Government. Then, the Central Government, having regard to
the gravity of the offence and other relevant factors, if is of the
opinion that the offence is a Scheduled Offence and it is fit to
1774 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
be investigated by the NIA, a direction would be issued to the
NIA to investigate the said Scheduled Offence. Irrespective of
the contingency under which the NIA is directed to investigate
a Scheduled Offence under Section 6, Section 8 would apply.
In either case, while carrying out the investigation in respect of
the accused alleged to have committed a Scheduled Offence,
information may emerge that there are other accused who
have committed any other offence which is connected with
the Scheduled Offence committed by the accused in respect
of whom investigation is being made by the NIA on the basis
of Section 6 of the NIA Act.
7.8 Therefore, owing to the connection of any other offence with the
Scheduled Offence committed by any other accused in respect
of whom investigation is necessary, steps could be taken to
investigate the said other accused also. This is because the
offence said to have been committed by any other accused has
a connection with the Scheduled Offence. One cannot determine
the manner in which such information may emanate while carrying
out an investigation in respect of the accused who is alleged to
have committed a Scheduled Offence and who may have also
committed any other offence (non-scheduled offence) which
could be along with any other accused in respect of whom no
direction may yet have been issued to carry on an investigation
by the NIA under Section 6(5) of the NIA Act but exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 8 may become necessary. Therefore,
during the course of investigation of an accused alleged to
have committed a Scheduled Offence, if, it emerges or it is
detected that the said accused along with any other accused has
committed other offence/s, then investigation with regard to any
other offence committed by some other accused along with the
accused said to have committed the Scheduled Offence could
also be carried out by requesting the Central Government for a
direction to investigate the other accused. Such other accused
may have committed an offence which has a connection with
the Scheduled Offence of the accused who is being investigated
and therefore Section 8 provides such a contingency.
7.9 Therefore, the nexus or connection between any other offence
and the Scheduled Offence is of critical importance and must
be present in order to enable the NIA to investigate any other
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1775
Ankush Vipan Kapoor v. National Investigation Agency
offence committed by an accused in connection with the
Scheduled Offence. The connection between a Scheduled
Offence and any other offence being established would enable
the NIA to investigate the accused of committing any other
offence which is connected with the Scheduled Offence. Once
there is such a connection between a Scheduled Offence and
a non-scheduled offence then, for all practical purposes the
non-scheduled offence would come within the connection of
a Scheduled Offence. Therefore, it is held that the accused
who may have committed a non-scheduled offence having a
connection with a Scheduled Offence can be investigated by
the NIA in respect of a non-scheduled offence.
7.10 It is reiterated that, while investigating the accused regarding
Scheduled Offences, if the NIA submits a report about some
other accused who may have also committed certain offences
connected with the Scheduled Offences under investigation
then, the Central Government on a consideration of such a
report may exercise suo motu powers and direct the NIA to also
investigate the other accused also provided the offences alleged
against the other accused are offences, having a connection
with the Scheduled Offence already under investigation. Thus,
on the aforesaid basis NIA would be enabled to also carry out
an investigation of any other accused who has committed an
offence connected with the Scheduled Offence already being
investigated. This would be in the realm of a joint investigation into
Scheduled Offences which may have occurred in different parts
of the country but having a connection with other offences also.
Thus, the expression “the accused” would have to be given an
expansive and enlarged meaning in the above context having
regard to the object and purpose of Section 8 of the NIA Act
and the context in which provision has to be interpreted.
7.11 The word “the” used before a noun “accused” in Section 8 of the
NIA Act has a particularizing effect, as opposed to “a” or “an”.
However, “a” and “the” sometimes have to be interchangeably
interpreted having regard to the context in which it is found and
in order to give it a contextual connotation so as to advance
the object and purpose of the provision. Section 8 of the NIA
Act has to be given a purposive and meaningful interpretation
1776 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
and one which would advance the object of Section 6 and
other provisions of the Act and cannot be read in a curtailed
and narrow fashion as submitted by learned senior counsel
for the petitioner.
7.12 We have interpreted Section 8 of the NIA Act in such a way
that while investigating the accused of a Scheduled Offence,
any other accused could also be investigated on the strength
of Section 8 provided the following condition precedents are
applicable:
(i) the NIA is of the opinion that during an investigation, any
other accused who is alleged to have committed an offence
having a connection with the Scheduled Offence has also
to be investigated. In other words, there is a connection
between the Scheduled Offence under investigation and
any other offence committed by any other accused;
(ii) a report by the NIA is submitted incorporating the aforesaid
opinion to the Central Government;
(iii) the Central Government on consideration of such a report,
in exercise of its suo motu powers under sub-section (5)
of Section 6 read with Section 8 of the NIA Act directs
the investigation to be carried out in respect of any other
accused also; and
(iv) the said investigation of any other accused must be carried
out jointly as far as practicable with the investigation of the
accused already under progress owing to the connection
between the Scheduled Offence and any other offence.
7.13 On a holistic reading of the Section 8, the expression “the
accused” cannot be restricted to only the accused in respect
of whom investigation is being carried out by the NIA for
any Scheduled Offence. The NIA, which is carrying on an
investigation into any Scheduled Offence, can also investigate
any other offence which any other accused may have committed
provided such other offence is also an offence connected with
the Scheduled Offence under investigation.
7.14 Thus, so long as the connection between any offence committed
by any other accused and the Scheduled Offence committed by
the accused in respect of whom investigation has been handed
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1777
Ankush Vipan Kapoor v. National Investigation Agency
over by the Central Government to the NIA is established,
the NIA would be empowered to conduct an investigation of
any other accused in respect of a Scheduled Offence which
is connected with the Scheduled Offence committed by the
accused in respect of whom the Central Government has
handed over or directed the investigation to be conducted by
it. Therefore, the scope of the powers of the NIA under Section
8 of the NIA Act has to be interpreted expansively and not in
a narrow manner.
7.15 While learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
correct course would be for the NIA to add those accused
under FIR No.20/2020 and FIR No.23/2020 as accused persons
under the NIA investigation rather than treating other offences
as connected, we find that such a course would lose sight of
the salutary statutory intent to investigate and prosecute at a
national level and, in particular, Section 6(6) of the Act which
clearly envisions culling of any duplicity of investigation. By
allowing the NIA to investigate those accused under different
FIRs registered in different States, an enlarged scope is provided
to the investigation into the Scheduled Offences.
7.16 As already noted in the preceding discussion we must be alive
to the statutory intent for an actual realization of the statutory
scheme. In that regard, it is noteworthy that the Act, especially
Section 6 of the NIA Act, is offence-centric and not accused-
centric. The Act revolves around effective investigation of
Scheduled Offences. Similarly, the central concern of Section
8 of the NIA Act is defining the scope of offences that can be
investigated by the NIA and on what basis and not who are
the accused.
7.17 Additionally, we might also note that the phraseology of Section 8
of the NIA Act also establishes that the NIA can only widen its
investigation to a non-scheduled offence only ‘while investigating
any Scheduled Offence’. Importantly, the NIA has not been
given unbridled power to initiate investigation of a connected
and non-scheduled offence in the absence of an investigation
of any Scheduled Offence. In our opinion, this speaks to the
Parliament’s wisdom to build safeguards within the text of the
NIA Act.
1778 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
7.18 Therefore, the submission of learned senior counsel Sri Dave
to read Section 8 of the NIA Act in a restrictive fashion and
not expansively, does not advance the object and purpose
of the Act and particularly Section 6 thereof and hence, is
rejected.
Analysis on facts of these cases:
8. The prayers sought in the writ petition have been noted. The petitioner
has assailed Annexures P-4, P-6 and P-9 which are orders passed
by respondent no.1 so as to seek a declaration that the actions taken
pursuant to the aforesaid orders are void and illegal. For ease of
reference, the aforesaid orders are extracted as under:
Annexure P-4
No 11011/44/2020/NIA
Government of India
Ministry of Home Affairs
CTR Division
North Block, New Delhi
Dated, the 29th June, 2020
ORDER
Whereas, the Central Government has received
information regarding the registration of Come No.01/2018
dated 12.08.2018 at PS ATS, Gujarat under sections 8
(C), 21 (c), 24, 25, 27 (A) & 29 of Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act relating to seizure
4.949 Kg. of heroin worth approximately Rs 15 crore by
Gujarat ATS from Salaya Village, District Devbhoomi
Dwarka of Gujarat, from the possession of arrested
accused Aziz Abdul Bhagad do Salaya Check Post, District
Dwarka;
And whereas, the aforesaid arrested accused had brought
total 300 k.g. of heroin in two rounds through sea route in
his own ship and gave it do accused Rafik Adham Sumra
R/o Mandvi, Kutch;
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1779
Ankush Vipan Kapoor v. National Investigation Agency
And whereas, sections 17 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967 attracted in this case;
And whereas, the Central Government is of the opinion that
Scheduled Offence under National Investigation Agency
Act, 2008 has been committed and, having regard to the
gravity of the offence and grave national and international
ramifications it is required to be investigated by the National
Investigation Agency in accordance with the National
Investigation Agency Act, 2008.
Now therefore in exercise of the powers conferred under
sub-section (5) of section 6 read with section 8 of the
National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 the Central
Government whereby directs the National Investigation
Agency to take up investigation of the aforesaid case
(Dharmender Kumar)
Under Secretary to the Government of India
To
The Director General,
National Investigation Agency,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi
Chief Secretary Government of Gujarat
DGP Gujarat
Annexure P-6
No. 11011/44/2020/NIA
Government of India
Ministry of Home Affairs
CTCR Division
In FIR No.23/2020
North Block, New Delhi
Dated, the 28 June, 2021
ORDER
Whereas, in exercise of the powers conferred under
sub- section (5) of section 6 read with section 8 of the
NIA Act, 2008, the Central Government has, by order No
1780 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
11011/44/2020/NIA dated 29.06.2020, directed the NIA
to take up investigation of a case Crime No. 01/2018
dated 12.08.2018 registered at PS ATS, Gujarat under
sections 8(c), 21(c), 24, 25, 27(A) & 29 of Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act relating to
seizure of 4.949 kg of heroin worth approximately Rs
15 crore by Gujarat ATS from Salaya village, District
Devbhoomi Dwarka of Gujarat, from the possession of
arrested accused Aziz Abdul Bhagad r/o Salaya Check
Post; District Dwarka,
And whereas, the NIA, vide Its ID No. 18/PD/03 cases/ATS/
NIA/DLI/2020/(468)/7662 dated 18.06.2021, has forwarded
a report stating that FIR No.23/2020 dated 31.01.2020
registered at PS STF, Amritsar, Punjab, under sections 21,
25, 27 & 29 of NDPS Act is a connected offence.
Whereas, Section 8 of the NIA Act, 2008 provides that
“while Investigating any Scheduled Offence, the Agency
may also Investigate any other offence which the accused
is alleged to have committed, if the offence is connected
with the Scheduled Offence”.
And therefore, in continuation of the order No
11011/44/2020/NIA dated 29.06.2020, which directs
the NIA to take up the investigation under section 6(5)
read with section 8 of the NIA Act, 2008, the NIA may
Investigate the FIR No.23/2020 dated 31.01.2020 as per
the provision of section 8 of the National Investigation
Agency Act, 2008.
Sd/-
(Kshitish Kumar)
Under Secretary to the Govt. of India
To
1. The Director General, National Investigation Agency,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Punjab.
3. DGP, Punjab
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1781
Ankush Vipan Kapoor v. National Investigation Agency
Annexure P-9
No. 11011144/2020/NIA
Government of India
Ministry of Home Affairs
CTCR Division
North Block, New Delhi
Dated, the 12th October, 2021
ORDER
Whereas, in exercise of the powers conferred under
sub-section (5) of section 6 read with section 8 of the
NIA Act, 2008, the Central Government has, by order
No.11011/44/2020/NIA dated 29 06 2020, directed the
NIA to take up investigation of a case Crime No. 01/2018
dated 12.08.2018 registered at PS ATS, Gujarat under
sections 8(c), 21(c), 24, 25, 27(A) & 29 of Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 relating
to seizure of 4.949 kg of heroin worth approximately Rs
15 crore by Gujarat ATS from Salaya village, District
Devbhoomi Dwarka of Gujarat, from the possession of
arrested accused Aziz Abdul Bhagad R/o Salaya Check
Post, District Dwarka. The NIA re-registered the above
said case as RC/26/2020/NIA/DLI dated 02.07.2020 under
sections 8(c), 21 (c), 24, 25, 27(A) & 29 of Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 and
sections 17 & 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1967;
And whereas, the NIA, vide its ID No.18/PD/03 cases/
ATS/NIA/D11/2020/(468)/7662 dated 18.06.2021, had
forwarded a report stating that FIR No.23/2020 dated
31.01.2021 registered at PS STF, Amritsar, Punjab, under
sections 21, 25, 27 & 29 of the NDPS Act is a connected
offence with RC/26/2020/NIA/DLI dated 02.07.2020 of the
NIA and the case was transferred to the NIA, vide order
of even no, dated 28.06.2021;
And whereas, the NIA, vide its ID No. 18/PD/03cases/
ATS/Gujarat/NIA/DLI/2020/(468)/16136 dated 28.09.2021,
has forwarded a report stating that FIR No.20/2020 dated
1782 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
29.01 2020 registered at PS STF, SAS Nagar, Amritsar,
Punjab, under sections 21 of the NDPS Act and 25 of the
Arms Act, is a connected offence with RC/26/2020/NI//DLI
dated 02.07.2020 of the NIA;
Whereas, Section 8 of the NIA Act, 2008 provides that
“While investigating any Scheduled Offence, the Agency
may also investigate any other offence which the accused
is alleged to have committed, if the offence is connected
with the Scheduled Offence”.
And therefore, in continuation of the order No. 11011/44/2020/
NIA dated 29.06.2020 and 28.06.2021, which directs the
NIA to take up the investigation under section 6(5) read
with section 8 of the NIA Act, 2008, the NIA may investigate
the FIR No.20/2020 dated 29.01.2020 registered at PS
STF, SAS Nagar, Amritsar, Punjab, as per the provision of
section 8 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008
Sd/-
(Rajeev Kumar)
Under Secretary to the Government of India
To
1. The Director General, National Investigation Agency,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi
2. Chief Secretary to the Government of Punjab
3. DGP, Punjab”
8.1 Annexure P-4 is an order dated 29.06.2020 by which, the first
respondent, on receipt of information regarding the registration of
FIR No.01/2018 dated 12.08.2018 at Police Station Anti-Terrorist
Squad (PS ATS), Ahmedabad, Gujarat under Sections 8(c),
21(c), 24, 25, 27A and 29 of NDPS Act relating to seizure of
4.949 kg of heroin worth approximately Rs.15 crore by Gujarat
ATS from the possession of the arrested accused Aziz Abdul
Bhagad who, having brought a total 300 kg of heroin in two
rounds through the sea route in his own ship had given it to
another accused, was of the opinion that Sections 17 and 18 of
UAPA are attracted to the case. The offences under Sections 17
and 18 of the UAPA being Scheduled Offences under NIA
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1783
Ankush Vipan Kapoor v. National Investigation Agency
Act, the Central Government was of the opinion that the said
offence had grave national and international ramifications
and therefore, it was required to be investigated by the NIA
in accordance with the NIA Act. Therefore, in exercise of the
powers conferred under sub-section (5) of Section 6 of the
NIA Act, the Central Government directed the NIA to take up
investigation of the aforesaid case i.e. under Sections 17 and
18 of the UAPA which are Scheduled Offences and in respect
of which the offences registered under FIR No.1/2018 dated
12.08.2018 at PS ATS, Ahmedabad, Gujarat are connected
with the Scheduled Offences.
8.2 Thereafter, Annexure P-6 order dated 28.06.2021 was passed
by the Central Government in exercise of power under sub-
section (5) of Section 6 read with Section 8 of the NIA Act in the
backdrop of order dated 29.06.2020 and in continuation thereof.
During the course of investigation as per the aforesaid order, NIA
had forwarded a report vide ID No.18/PD/03cases/ATS/NIA/DLI
/2020/(468)/7662 dated 18.06.2021 stating that FIR No.23/2020
dated 31.01.2020 registered at PS STF, Amritsar, Punjab under
Sections 21, 25, 27 and 29 of NDPS Act is an offence connected
with the Scheduled Offence. That having regard to Section 8
of NIA Act and in continuation of Order No.11011/44/2020/NIA
dated 29.06.2020, it was ordered by the Central Government
that the NIA may investigate FIR No.23/2020 dated 31.01.2020
as per the Section 8 of the NIA Act.
8.3 In the same vein, the Central Government, by its order dated
12.10.2021, in continuation of the order dated 29.06.2020 and
28.06.2021, on the basis of the report forwarded by NIA vide its
ID No.18/PD/03/cases/ATS/Gujarat/NIA/DLI/2020/(468)/16136
dated 28.9.2021 stating that FIR No.20/2020 dated 29.01.2020
registered at Police Station STF, District STF Wing, Amritsar,
Punjab is a connected offence with RC/26/2020/NI//DLI dated
02.07.2020 of the NIA by invoking Section 8 directed that the
NIA may investigate the FIR No.20/2020 dated 29.01.2020
registered at PS STF, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.
8.4 For ready reference, the relevant details as to the accused under
the three FIRs and charge-sheets filed before the transfer of FIR
No.23/2020 to the NIA are culled out from the record as under:
1784 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
ACCUSED IN FIRST INFORMATION REPORTS
FIR No.01/ FIR No. RC FIR No. 20/2020 FIR No. 23/2020 dt.
2018 dt. 26/2020/NIA/DLI dt. 29.01.2020 31.01.2020
12.08.2018 dt. 02.07.2020
(renumbered FIR
No. 01/2018) PS STF, SAS PS STF, Amritsar,
PS. ATS, Dist. PS NIA Hqrs, New Nagar, Mohali, Punjab
Ahmedabad, Delhi Punjab
Gujarat
Aziz Abdul Aziz Abdul Bhagad Happy Ankush Kapoor
Bhagad
Rafik Adham Sukhwinder Singh
Sumra
Nazir Ahmad Major Singh
Arshad @ Raja Tamanna Gupta
Dubai
Manzoor Ahmad Afghanistani Arman
Basher Mul
Razak Adam Simarjeet Singh
Sumra Sandhu
Sunil Vithal Ukan-
drao
Karim Mhd. Siraj.
Wanted accused
person:
Sahid Kasambhal
Sumra
Wanted accused
person:
Simaranjit Singh
Sarabjit Singh
Sandhu
Wanted accused
person:
Haji Sab Bhaijaan
Wanted accused
person:
Pakistani national -
Nabibax
Wanted accused
person:
Pakistani Persons
Haji sab @ Bhai-
jan, who brought
the heroin in ship
through sea route
from Pakistan, their
names and address
not known
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1785
Ankush Vipan Kapoor v. National Investigation Agency
ACCUSED IN CHARGE SHEETS
Charge Sheet Charge Sheet Supplementary Supplementary
dt. 11.06.2020 in dt. 18.07.2020 Charge Sheet No. Charge Sheet
FIR No. 20/2020 in FIR No. 18/2020 dt. 07.08.2020 No. 18(A)/2021
23/2020 filed by NIA in FIR No. dt. 24.05.2021
RC-26/2020/NIA/DLI filed by NIA in
FIR No. RC-
26/2020/NIA/DLI
Sukhbir Singh Arman Bashar Aziz S/o Abdul Bhagad Indresh Kumar
alias Happy Mall (Accused No. 1) (Accused No. 9)
(Accused No. 1) (Accused No. 1)
Ankush Kapoor Sukhwinder Rafik
(Petitioner) Singh (Accused No. 2)
(Accused No. 2) (Accused No. 2)
Sukhwinder Major Singh Nazir Ahmad
Singh (Accused No. 3) (Accused No. 3)
(Accused No. 3)
Major Singh Miss Tamanna Arshad @ Raja Dubai
(Accused No. 4) Gupta (Accused No. 4)
(Accused No. 4)
Mantej Singh Mantej Singh Manzoor Ahmad
(Accused No. 5) (Accused No. 5) (Accused No. 5)
Tamanna Putri Indresh Kumar Razak
Rakesh Gupta (Accused No.6) (Accused No. 6)
(Accused No. 6)
Arman Bashar Sukhbir Singh Karim
Mall alias Happy (Accused No. 7)
(Accused No. 7) (Accused No.7)
Kuldeep Singh Ankush Kapoor Sunil Vithal Barmase
(Accused No. 8) (Accused No.8) (Accused No. 8)
Malkit Singh Hanitpal Singh Shahid Kasam Sumra
(Accused No. 9) (Accused No. 9) (Wanted Accused-1)
Accused Sahil Sharma Simranjit Singh
which were not (Accused No. Sarabjit Singh Sandhu
challaned: 10) (Wanted Accused-2)
Simranjit Singh
Sandhu
Accused which Gagandeep Indresh
were not Singh (Wanted Accused-3)
challaned:
Tanveer Singh
Bedi
1786 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Charge Sheet Charge Sheet Supplementary Supplementary
dt. 11.06.2020 in dt. 18.07.2020 Charge Sheet No. Charge Sheet
FIR No. 20/2020 in FIR No. 18/2020 dt. 07.08.2020 No. 18(A)/2021
23/2020 filed by NIA in FIR No. dt. 24.05.2021
RC-26/2020/NIA/DLI filed by NIA in
FIR No. RC-
26/2020/NIA/DLI
Accused which Anwar Masih Haji Sab alias Bhaijaan
were not (Wanted Accused-4)
challaned:
Baijaan
Accused Pakistani national –
who were not Nabibaksh
challaned: (Wanted Accused-5)
Simranjit Singh
Sandhu
Accused who 10 Pakistani Nationals
were not of Haji saab @ Bhaijan,
challaned: whose names and
addresses are not
Tanvir Singh known who transported
smuggled narcotic drug
heroin in the Pakistani
vessel to India
Accused who
were not
challaned:
Sunil Vithal
Baramas
Accused who
were not
challaned:
Karim
Mohammad
Siraj
Accused who
were not
challaned:
Razaq Adam
Sumra
Accused who
were not
challaned:
Arjan
Accused who
were not
challaned:
Bhaijaan
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1787
Ankush Vipan Kapoor v. National Investigation Agency
8.5 The connection that is sought to be made between FIR
No.23/2020 dated 31.01.2020 registered at Police Station STF,
District STF Wing, Amritsar, Punjab and FIR No.20/2020 dated
29.01.2020 registered at PS STF, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab is
with FIR No.01/2018 dated 12.08.2018 at PS ATS, Ahmedabad,
Gujarat in respect of which Sections 17 and 18 of the UAPA
were invoked which are Scheduled Offences.
8.6 The common thread between the aforesaid three orders issued
by the Central Government in exercise of powers under sub-
section (5) of Section 6 read with Section 8 of the NIA Act is
that all these offences relate to various provisions of the NDPS
Act namely, Sections 8(c), 21(c), 24, 25, 27A and 29 as well
as Sections 21, 25, 27 and 29 of NDPS Act. Therefore, the
offences registered in FIR No.1/2018 dated 12.08.2018 at PS
ATS, Ahmedabad, Gujarat (Gujarat case) and the offences
registered against the petitioner herein under FIR No.20/2020
dated 29.01.2020 and under FIR No.23/2020 dated 31.01.2020
all being under the NDPS Act and in view of the connectedness
of the offence under NDPS Act with the Scheduled Offence
in Gujarat FIR No.01/2018 in respect of which the Central
Government was of the opinion that the provisions of Sections
17 and 18 of the UAPA (Scheduled Offences under the NIA
Act) were also attracted as a result, the Central Government
directed the NIA to investigate into the Scheduled Offences
(Sections 17 and 18 of the UAPA) on the basis of the initial
order passed under sub-section (5) of Section 6 of the NIA Act
on 29.06.2021.
8.7 Accordingly, when the NIA was investigating into the Scheduled
Offences in the Gujarat case, it forwarded reports to the
Central Government in respect of FIR No.23/2020 registered at
Police Station STF, District STF Wing, Amritsar, Punjab dated
31.01.2020 and FIR No.20/2020 dated 29.01.2020 registered
at PS STF, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab under the provisions of
the NDPS Act. On a consideration of the said reports and on the
strength of Section 8 of the NIA Act, the Central Government
passed orders to investigate into the offences alleged against
the petitioner herein on the premise that those offences have
a connection with the Scheduled Offences.
1788 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
8.8 It is apparent that before the date of directing NIA to investigate
FIR No.23/2020 i.e. 28.06.2021, two Supplementary Charge-
Sheets had been filed by the NIA. One on 07.08.2020, wherein
Simarjeet Singh Sandhu and Indresh Kumar were arrayed as
WA-2 and WA-3 respectively. Another Supplementary Charge-
Sheet was filed on 24.05.2021, wherein Indresh Kumar, who is
ascribed the role of driver of the truck which was apprehended
by STF Amritsar, was transposed from WA-3 to Accused No.9.
Therefore, before the order dated 28.06.2021 passed by the
Central Government and invocation of powers under Section
6(5) read with Section 8 of the NIA Act directing investigation
of FIR No.23/2020 dated 31.01.2020, there were at least two
accused persons in the ongoing investigation of the Scheduled
Offences who were also named in the aforesaid FIRs filed in
the State of Punjab.
8.9 We therefore find that the impugned orders of the Central
Government are in accordance with sub-section (5) of Section 6
read with Section 8 of the NIA Act. This is because on a reading
of the impugned orders, we find there is a connection, nexus
and a link which has been brought out between the Scheduled
Offences investigated by the NIA under Sections 17 and 18 of
UAPA pursuant to order dated 29.06.2020 and subsequently
under the orders dated 28.06.2021 and 12.10.2021 insofar
as the offences alleged against the petitioner herein under
the provisions of the NDPS Act are concerned. It is precisely
for circumstances such as in the present case that Section 8
enables the NIA to investigate into even non-scheduled offences
or any other offence of which an accused has been alleged to
have been committed provided they are connected with any
Scheduled Offence (Sections 17 and 18 of the UAPA in the
instant case) vide Schedule to NIA Act.
Hence, in this case, Annexures P-6 and P-9 have been issued
by the Central Government by exercising power under sub-
section (5) of Section 6 read with Section 8 of the NIA Act and
in continuation of Annexure ‘P-4’. Therefore, we do not find any
reason to quash the impugned orders at Annexures P-4, P-6
and P-9 issued by respondent No.1. The writ petition is hence
liable to be dismissed and is dismissed.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1789
Ankush Vipan Kapoor v. National Investigation Agency
8.10 In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the NIA was
justified in seeking cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner
herein by the High Court in respect of the offences alleged
against him under the provisions of the NIA Act in the State
of Punjab. This is because the said offences are now being
investigated by the NIA and there is also transfer of the trial
from the concerned Special Court in the State of Punjab to
the Special Court in the State of Gujarat, to be tried along
with Scheduled Offences under Sections 17 and 18 of the
UAPA as per Section 14 of the NIA Act. Therefore, the special
leave petition is also liable to be dismissed and is dismissed.
The interim relief granted to the petitioner vide order dated
07.03.2024 and extended from time to time stands vacated.
Epilogue:
The Ripple Effects of Illicit Drug Trade and Drug Abuse:
9. Before parting with these cases, although we are mindful that the
present matter concerns cancellation of bail and challenge to the
Central Government Orders directing the NIA to investigate certain
offences under the provisions of NDPS Act against the petitioner here,
we would like to record our earnest disquiet about the proliferation
of substance abuse in India.
9.1 The ills of drug abuse seem to be shadowing the length
and breadth of our country with the Central and every State
Government fighting against the menace of substance abuse.
The debilitating impact of drug trade and drug abuse is an
immediate and serious concern for India. As the globe grapples
with the menace of escalating Substance Use Disorders (“SUD”)
and an ever accessible drug market, the consequences leave
a generational imprint on public health and even national
security. Article 47 of the Constitution makes it a duty of the
State to regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the
standard of living of its people and the improvement of public
health as among its primary duties and in particular the State
shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption
except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs
which are injurious to health. The State has a responsibility
to address the root causes of this predicament and develop
1790 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
effective intervention strategies to ensure that India’s younger
population, which is particularly vulnerable to substance abuse,
is protected and saved from such menace. This is particularly
because substance abuse is linked to social problems and can
contribute to child maltreatment, spousal violence, and even
property crime in a family.
9.2 Despite the efforts of the State, an unprecedented scale of
coordination and profit seeking has sustained this menace so
hard-hitting and multifaceted that it causes suffering cutting
across age groups, communities, and regions. Worse than
suffering and pain, is the endeavour to profit from it and use
the proceeds thereof for the committing of other crimes against
society and the State such as conspiracy against the State
and funding terrorist activities. Profits from drug trafficking are
increasingly used for funding terrorism and supporting violence.
9.3 From heroin and synthetic drugs to prescription medication
abuse, India is grappling with an expanding drug trade and a rising
addiction crisis. The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment’s
2019 Report (“MoSJE 2019 Report”) on ‘Magnitude of Substance
Use in India’ revealed that nearly 2.26 crore people use opioids
in India. It was also borne out that substance use exists in all
the population groups; however, adult men bear the brunt of
substance use disorders. After alcohol, cannabis and opioids
are the next most commonly used substances in India. About
2.8% of the population (3.1 crore individuals) reported having
used cannabis and its products, of which 1.2% (approximately
1.3 crore persons) was illegal cannabis and its products.
9.4 Alarmingly, the rate of opioid dependence is pacing at an
alarming rate, partly due to the ongoing narcotic trade across
the country’s borders and their consequent ease of availability.
According to the MoSJE 2019 Report, there are approximately
77 lakh problem opioid users – the Report defines “problem
users” as those using the drug in harmful or dependent pattern
in India. More than half of 77 Lakh problem opioid users in
India are spread throughout the States of Uttar Pradesh,
Punjab, Haryana, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Delhi, Andhra
Pradesh, West Bengal, Rajasthan and Orissa.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1791
Ankush Vipan Kapoor v. National Investigation Agency
9.5 Studies across the globe suggest that easy access to narcotic
substances, peer pressure, and mental health challenges
particularly in the context of academic pressure and family
dysfunction could be significant contributors to this disturbing
trend. Addiction at a young age can derail academic, professional
and personal aims, leading to long-term socio-economic
instability of almost an entire generation. The psychological
impact of drug abuse, including depression, anxiety, and violent
tendencies, further exacerbates the problem.
9.6 The reasons behind this rise in juvenile addiction are complex.
Peer pressure, lack of parental affection, care and guidance,
stress from academic pressures and the easy availability of drugs
contribute to this alarming trend. In many cases, adolescents
resort to drugs as a form of escapism, trying to cope with
personal and emotional issues.
9.7 Preventing drug addiction among adolescents requires a
concerted effort from multiple stakeholders: parents and
siblings, schools and the community. Given the disturbing rise
in adolescent drug use, urgent interventions are needed.
9.8 The MoSJE 2019 Report found that only one among four persons
suffering from dependence on illicit drugs had ever received
any treatment and only one in twenty persons with illicit drug
dependence ever received any in-patient treatment. Given the
scale of the issue, there is need for a more comprehensive
view of the solutions to the grave problem.
Parents:
9.9 Parents have a crucial role in the prevention of drug abuse among
adolescents. Parental awareness, communication, and support
are key in mitigating the risk of drug addiction. The first step in
the effective preventive leap should start within the household.
In our view, the most important yearning of children is love and
affection and a sense of security emanating from parents and
family. Domestic violence and discord between parents; lack of
time being spent by parents with children due to various reasons
and compensating the same by pumping pocket money are
some of the reasons why young adolescents are being veered
1792 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
towards escapism and substance abuse. Affectionate and friendly
conversations between parents and children and a continuous
assessment of the direction in which a child is proceeding is
a duty which each parent must undertake. This is to build a
sense of emotional security around a child for, in our view, an
emotionally secure child would not become vulnerable and be
lured towards substance abuse as a possible path towards
seeking what is lacking in life. No longer should drug abuse be
treated as a taboo that parents disengage from. Instead, open
discussions about drug use and its ill consequences will provide
parents and children a safe space and equip children with the
knowledge to help themselves out of peer pressure.
Schools and Colleges:
9.10 Of equal importance is the need for schools and colleges to
aid the government programs in educating students about the
perils of drug abuse. They must include prevention of drug
abuse in their curriculum, focusing on the physical, emotional,
and legal consequences of drug abuse. Naturally, all efforts
should be backed by scientific evidence and experiential
learning. It is an urgent need that the Ministry of Social Justice
and Empowerment’s framework of National Action Plan for Drug
Demand Reduction and other programs are given a boost and
truly imbibed in drug education programs run by schools and
colleges in the country.
Local Communities and NGOs:
9.11 Local communities should work with NGOs and law enforcement
agencies to create awareness campaigns that address the
risks of drug abuse with a special focus on schools and youth
centres. Either through awareness campaigns, community
outreach or peer education, communities can play a critical
role in creating knowledgeable safe space that curb the use
of drugs.
NALSA:
9.12 The National Legal Services Authority and State Legal Authorities
must devise awareness programs and implement them
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1793
Ankush Vipan Kapoor v. National Investigation Agency
particularly in vulnerable regions of the States and territories
more exposed to drug menace.
NCPCR and NCB:
9.13 There is a need for more synergies along the lines of Joint
Action Plan on “Prevention of Drugs and Substance Abuse
among Children and Illicit Trafficking” developed by the National
Commission for Protection of Child Rights (“NCPCR”) in
collaboration with Narcotics Control Bureau (“NCB”).
To the Youth of India:
9.14 For youngsters just beginning to explore the world, the
consumption of drugs in popular culture has propelled the
cultural push towards a dangerous lifestyle, one that incorrigibly
applauds drugs use as ‘cool’ and a fashionable display of
camaraderie. We implore the youth to take charge of their
decisional autonomy and firmly resist peer pressure and desist
from emulation of certain personalities who may be indulging
in drugs.
9.15 It is sad that vulnerable children turn to drugs as an escapism
from emotional distress and academic pressures or due to peer
pressure. The unfortunate reality is that victims of substance
abuse are not limited to the unfortunate ones who have fallen
prey to it but also include their family and peers. Our approach
towards the victims of drug abuse must not be to demonize the
victims but to rehabilitate them.
9.16 Deep-rooted in our constitutional philosophy and social fabric
is the vision to facilitate every citizen to be a constructive
citizen, the best they can be. This vision hopes that the State’s
obligation is met with a commitment to contribute as constructive
citizens to the nation’s development. Part and parcel of this
constructive citizenship is the positive aspect of uplifting
oneself and those around towards a more participative polity
and dynamic economy. Inextricably linked to this commitment
is also the negative aspect of constructive citizenship, that is,
to actively refrain from contributing against the interest of the
community and the nation. It is a need of the times that the
1794 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
end consumers of the illicit drug trade exercise community-
friendly decision making and refuse to sustain the bottom-line
of drug traffickers.
9.17 The arc and web of drug trade cannot be permitted to corrode
the shine of the youth of India!
Result of the Case: S
pecial leave petition and writ petition
dismissed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Section 8 NIA Act"Sign in to search