The Supreme Court of India has set aside the orders of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana that granted regular bail to two individuals accused of possessing 1.465 kilograms of heroin. A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih held that the mandatory “twin conditions” under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, cannot be relaxed merely on the ground of prolonged incarceration or the right to a speedy trial. The Court observed that the High Court erred in “diluting” the statutory requirements and failed to note material non-disclosures by the accused.
Background of the Case
The case involves two separate appeals arising from FIR No. 06 of 2024, registered at Police Station Khalra, District Tarn Taran. On 10 January 2024, a vehicle search led to the recovery of 957 grams of heroin from Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora and 508 grams from Gurjit Singh @ Geetu. The total recovery of 1.465 kilograms was admittedly a “commercial quantity” under the NDPS Act.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, by orders dated 18 February 2026, enlarged both respondents on regular bail. In its reasoning, the High Court noted the respondents had been in custody for over two years, only 2 out of 24 witnesses had been examined, and that “the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted bearing in mind the right to a speedy trial.”
Arguments of the Parties
The State of Punjab (Appellant) assailed the High Court’s orders, arguing that recording satisfaction on the twin conditions of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) is a sine qua non for granting bail in commercial quantity cases. The State relied on Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif, State of Meghalaya v. Lalrintluanga Sailo, and Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh. It was further argued that given the drug menace in Punjab, courts ought to be circumspect, as noted in Parwinder Singh v. State of Punjab.
The Respondents (Accused) argued that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 cannot be defeated by a mechanical application of Section 37. They further alleged violations of the mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50, and 52 of the NDPS Act and pointed out that all prosecution witnesses were police personnel. They also argued that they had no prior antecedents under the NDPS Act.
The Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court emphasised that Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act is mandatory. It requires the Court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
1. Harmonious Construction of Article 21 and Section 37 The Court rejected the High Court’s view that Section 37 rigours can be “diluted” for speedy trial. The Bench observed:
“The constitutional right under Article 21 and the special provision of law under Section 37, NDPS Act are to be read harmoniously and not placed in opposition to each other. The High Court, by failing to record its satisfaction on the twin conditions under Section 37, has in this Court’s view, committed an error.”
2. Failure to Consider Record and Non-Disclosure Regarding Sukhwinder Singh, the Court noted that while the High Court recorded he was “not involved in any other case”, the respondent had admitted in his own petition that one more FIR was pending against him. The Court called these findings “irreconcilable” and “contrary to facts”.
Regarding Gurjit Singh, the Court noted that his earlier bail application had been dismissed by a coordinate Bench of the High Court on 27 August 2025, a fact that was not clearly disclosed in the subsequent petition. The Court held:
“A disclosure that is calculated to obscure rather than illuminate cannot, in the eye of the law, be regarded as a disclosure at all.”
3. Caution on Drug Menace The Bench reiterated the caution sounded in Parwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, stating that courts must be highly circumspect while granting bail to repeat offenders in regions gripped by drug menace.
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court’s judgments dated 18 February 2026. The respondents were directed to surrender before the Trial Court within one week. The Court reserved liberty for the respondents to apply for regular bail afresh before the competent Court upon surrender.
Case Details Block
- Case Title: State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora (and State of Punjab v. Gurjit Singh @ Geetu)
- Case No.: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5020 of 2026 & SLP (Crl.) No. 5075 of 2026
- Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
- Date: April 24, 2026
