The Supreme Court has set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court order granting regular bail to an accused in a heroin trafficking case involving commercial quantity, holding that the mandatory twin conditions under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) were not considered. A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh allowed the State of Punjab’s appeal and restored the accused’s custody.
Background of the Case
The case arose from FIR No. 06 dated January 10, 2024, registered under Sections 21(c), 29, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act. According to the prosecution, police personnel had established a checkpoint near a bridge on Canal Road in Village Veeram when a Mahindra XUV 300 allegedly attempted to flee upon spotting the police. The vehicle stopped after switching off, and two occupants were apprehended.
Following compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, a search was conducted in the presence of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. The police recovered 1.465 kilograms of heroin from the occupants. The contraband was seized, and a forensic report later confirmed the substance to be diacetylmorphine (heroin).
The respondent, Balraj Singh alias Billa, was not present at the spot. However, according to the prosecution, the co-accused disclosed during investigation that they had collected the heroin on his instructions while he was lodged in Central Jail, Goindwal Sahib. The investigation further alleged that he was operating a drug trafficking network from inside the jail using illegal mobile phones.
Bail Proceedings Before the High Court
The respondent’s application for regular bail was rejected by the Special Court at Tarn Taran on July 3, 2025. He subsequently approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The High Court granted bail on October 15, 2025, observing that criminal antecedents alone could not justify denial of bail. It also relied on the respondent’s period of custody and the likelihood that the trial would take considerable time to conclude.
The State challenged this order before the Supreme Court.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
The State of Punjab argued that the High Court had ignored the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act despite the case involving commercial quantity of narcotics. It relied on previous Supreme Court decisions including State of Meghalaya v. Lalrintluanga Sailo and Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh. The State further submitted that the respondent had three criminal antecedents of a similar nature which had been overlooked.
The respondent contended that he had been falsely implicated. He argued that his name did not appear in the FIR, no recovery had been made from him, investigation was complete, and he had already spent one year and seven months in custody. He also pointed out that only two of the twenty-four prosecution witnesses had been examined, indicating that the trial was unlikely to conclude soon.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Court identified the central issue as whether the High Court’s bail order complied with the settled legal principles governing Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
After examining the statutory provision and earlier precedents, the Court reiterated that in cases involving commercial quantity of narcotic drugs, courts must satisfy themselves regarding the twin conditions under Section 37 before granting bail. These conditions require the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
Referring to State of Meghalaya v. Lalrintluanga Sailo, the Court reproduced the following observation:
“Thus, the provisions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act and the decisions referred supra revealing the consistent view of this Court that while considering the application for bail made by an accused involved in an offence under the NDPS Act a liberal approach ignoring the mandate under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is impermissible. Recording a finding mandated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which is sine qua non for granting bail to an accused under the NDPS Act cannot be avoided while passing orders on such applications.”
The Bench noted that the present case undisputedly involved commercial quantity of heroin. It found that the High Court’s order contained no discussion whatsoever on the twin conditions mandated by Section 37.
The Court observed:
“Upon a bare perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that there has been no consideration at all by the High Court on the twin conditions. In such a scenario, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.”
Antecedents and Period of Custody
The Supreme Court also independently assessed the respondent’s case against the requirements of Section 37 and concluded that bail was not warranted.
The Bench held that the respondent’s criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act indicated that it could not be said that he was unlikely to commit a similar offence if released on bail.
It further rejected the argument based on prolonged incarceration, noting that the respondent had undergone custody for only one year and seven months while the offence carried a maximum punishment of twenty years’ imprisonment. Therefore, the Court held that the case did not warrant interference on Article 21 grounds.
The Court also observed that the question of how constitutional courts should approach bail under special statutes when Article 21 considerations intersect with statutory restrictions has recently been referred to a larger consideration in Tasleem Ahmed v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Consequently, it declined to further elaborate on that issue in the present case.
Decision
Allowing the appeal filed by the State of Punjab, the Supreme Court set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order dated October 15, 2025 granting regular bail to the respondent. The Court held that the mandatory requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act had not been considered and that no case for bail was made out on the facts of the case.
Case Details
Case Title: State of Punjab v. Balraj Singh @ Billa
Case No.: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 896 of 2026
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Date: June 2, 2026
