Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused bail to two men accused of smuggling narcotics, arms, and explosives from across the Pakistan border to finance terror activities in India. The accused, Gurmukh Singh, son of former Akal Takht Jathedar Jasbir Singh Rode, and Gurmej Singh, had approached the high court after their initial bail applications were rejected by an NIA court in Punjab.

The division bench comprising Justices Gurvinder Singh Gill and Ramesh Kumari passed the order on December 5, 2025, observing that sponsoring terrorism is a resource-intensive activity, requiring substantial funds. The court emphasized that heroin smuggled into the country is allegedly being converted into financial support for terrorist operations, highlighting the nexus between narcotics and terrorism.

Court Observations on Terror Funding

In its judgment, the bench noted that the National Investigation Agency (NIA) had produced sufficient prima facie evidence indicating the involvement of both appellants in activities related to terrorism. The court underscored that the trial against the accused is still ongoing and highlighted the risk of absconding, given their reported connections with individuals and entities operating from across the border in Pakistan.

“The facts brought on record by the respondent NIA prima facie prove the involvement of the appellants in terrorist activities. Since they have links with persons across the border who fund their activities, there is a substantial likelihood of their absconding from trial,” the court observed.

The bench also stressed the broader context of anti-national activities in which the accused are allegedly engaged. It described the case as part of a growing pattern of “narco-terrorism,” where the sale of narcotic substances is directly linked to financing terrorism. The court’s observations reflect the gravity of such cases, in which the illegal trade of drugs is used as a funding mechanism for acts of violence and destabilization.

Details of the Alleged Activities

According to the investigation, Gurmukh Singh and Gurmej Singh were allegedly involved in the smuggling of heroin, arms, and explosives from Pakistan into India using drones. The proceeds from these illegal activities were reportedly intended to support terrorist operations within India.

The high court highlighted that the accused were “actively involved” in India in furthering terror funding at the behest of their handlers, who allegedly operate from Pakistan. By drawing this connection, the court underscored the cross-border dimension of the case, which adds to the risk profile of the accused.

Arguments from the Defense

During the hearings, Gurmukh Singh’s counsel argued that the accused were implicated in the case due to political reasons. The defense claimed that the police had recorded the statement of a co-accused and subsequently dragged the appellants into the case, alleging misuse of investigative powers.

Despite these arguments, the court maintained that the charges were serious and supported by evidence presented by the NIA. The bench emphasized that the ongoing trial requires the presence of the accused to ensure accountability and the proper course of justice.

High Court’s Emphasis on National Security

The decision to deny bail reflects the judiciary’s approach toward cases involving national security and cross-border terror financing. The bench’s observations indicate that narcotics-related offenses linked to terrorism are treated with heightened scrutiny due to their potential to fund activities that threaten public safety and national stability.

The court highlighted that narcotics and terrorism are increasingly interconnected, forming a sophisticated network of anti-national activity. By linking the proceeds of narcotics to terror financing, the judgment signals the courts’ recognition of evolving threats to internal security.

Context and Broader Implications

This case is one among several in recent years that exemplify the challenges posed by narco-terrorism in India. Smuggling operations from across international borders, often facilitated through covert means such as drones, have become a significant security concern. The high court’s decision underscores the judiciary’s proactive stance in ensuring that accused individuals implicated in such activities remain under judicial oversight during ongoing investigations.

Moreover, the cross-border element of this case adds another layer of complexity. By highlighting the links to handlers and networks in Pakistan, the court emphasized the international dimension of the crime and the potential threats posed to national security. Such cases underscore the importance of intelligence coordination and law enforcement vigilance in preventing the inflow of funds and resources that could fuel terrorism.

Judicial Prudence in Bail Decisions

The denial of bail to Gurmukh Singh and Gurmej Singh also illustrates the careful balancing act courts perform between individual rights and national security interests. While bail is a fundamental right under Indian law, it can be withheld in cases where the accused are considered a flight risk or where their release could jeopardize ongoing investigations or public safety.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s ruling reflects this principle, emphasizing that the severity of the charges, the evidence presented, and the potential risks of absconding justify continued judicial custody. This approach is consistent with the legal framework governing offenses related to terrorism, where preventive and corrective measures are strictly enforced.

Conclusion

The high-profile denial of bail in this narco-terror funding case highlights the Indian judiciary’s firm stance against activities that endanger national security. By linking the smuggling of narcotics, arms, and explosives to terror financing, the Punjab and Haryana High Court underscored the complex interplay between illegal trade and terrorist operations.

The accused remain in custody as the trial proceeds, ensuring that investigations continue without interference. This case also serves as a broader reminder of the emerging threats posed by narco-terrorism and the critical need for judicial vigilance, effective law enforcement, and cross-border intelligence coordination to protect public safety and national security.

As India grapples with evolving security challenges, cases such as these demonstrate the judiciary’s role in balancing civil liberties with the imperative of safeguarding the nation against threats that exploit illicit networks for terrorism financing.