Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
State Of Punjab – Appellant
Versus
Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2143 of 2026 (Arising Out Of SLP (Crl.) No. 5020 of 2026)
Decided On : 24-04-2026
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 37 – Bail – In matters involving recovery of contraband in commercial quantity, twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of NDPS Act are mandatory and entail no relaxation merely on the ground that accused has undergone prolonged incarceration during pendency of trial – The provision casts upon Court duty to record, before enlarging accused on bail, its satisfaction on two cumulative conditions, first, that there exist reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of offence charged; and second, that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail – Recording of such satisfaction is not a mere formality but a mandatory pre-condition, non-observance of which vitiates grant of bail – Recording of satisfaction on twin conditions under Section 37 is mandatory and not merely directory. (Para 9)
(B) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 37 read with Sections 21(c) and 29 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 483 – Constitution of India – Article 21 – Grant of bail – Seizure of Heroin – Impugned order, on its own showing, does not record satisfaction mandated under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of NDPS Act – Far from recording such satisfaction, High Court has gone on to observe that rigours of Section 37 of NDPS Act can be diluted bearing in mind right to a speedy trial – Such approach is plainly contrary to settled law laid down by Supreme Court and deserves to be set aside on this ground alone – Right under Article 21 must be exercised within framework of Section 37 and cannot be pressed into service solely on the ground of delay to override it – Constitutional right under Article 21 and special provision of law under Section 37, NDPS Act are to be read harmoniously and not placed in opposition to each other – Besides, he who invokes discretion of Court must approach it with clean hands and place full picture before it – Order granting bail set aside. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.02.2026 passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CRM-M No. 70945 of 2025, whereby the petition preferred by respondent under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in connection with FIR registered for offences punishable under Sections 21(c) and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, came to be allowed.
Findings of Court:
The respondent shall surrender before the competent Trial Court within one week from the date of this order. Liberty is reserved to the respondent to apply afresh for regular bail before the competent Court on surrender.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - The twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) NDPS Act are mandatory and require explicit recording of satisfaction before granting bail in commercial quantity cases (!) . - Recording of satisfaction is not a mere formality; non-observance vitiates bail, as held in Kashif and reiterated here (!) . - The constitutional right to speedy trial under Article 21 must be exercised within the framework of Section 37; they must be harmonized, not opposed (!) . - The High Court’s observed dilution of Section 37 due to speedy trial cannot be sustained; bail cannot override Section 37’s safeguards (!) . - The order under challenge failed to reflect proper considerations: misstatement that respondent had no other case, lack of reference to earlier BNSS bail petition, and incomplete disclosure regarding prior bail proceedings (CRM-M No. 58082/2025) (!) (!) (!) . - The respondent’s admission of another case was irreconcilable with the High Court’s finding of "not involved in any other case," showing a lack of candour and full disclosure (!) . - The impugned order did not address the fate of the earlier BNSS bail petition and potential changed circumstances necessary for a successive petition (!) . - The Court held that the impugned order lacked adequate consideration and evidence, warranting setting aside and directing surrender with option to apply afresh for regular bail (!) (!) . - The appeal was allowed; the High Court’s order granting bail was set aside for the reasons above (!) . - The respondent is to surrender within one week and may re-apply for regular bail upon surrender (!) .
ORDER :
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.02.2026 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CRM-M No. 70945 of 2025, whereby the petition preferred by the respondent under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter, “the BNSS”) seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 06 of 2024 dated 10.01.2024 registered at Police Station Khalra, District Tarn Taran, for offences punishable under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter, “the NDPS Act”), came to be allowed.
3. The facts, briefly stated, are that on 10.01.2024, during a vehicle check at a police barricade on the Canal Road near Village Veeram in District Tarn Taran, a Mahindra XUV-300 car bearing registration No. UP-15-DD-6521 was intercepted. The two occupants, the co-accused Gurjit Singh @ Geetu (driver) and the respondent herein, were apprehended. Upon search conducted, total three packets of heroin were recovered, two weighing 957 grams from the respondent and one weighing 508 grams from the co-accused, aggregating to 1.465 kilograms, admittedly a “commercial quantity” under the NDPS Act. The chargesheet came to be filed on 21.06.2024 and charges were framed by the Trial Court on 20.07.2024 under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act.
4. The respondent’s first regular bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS preferred before the High Court, being CRM-M No. 58082 of 2025, came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 27.10.2025. The respondent thereafter filed the second petition under Section 483 of the BNSS, being CRM-M No. 70945 of 2025, which has been allowed by the impugned order.
5. By the impugned order, the High Court enlarged the respondent on regular bail recording, in paragraph 8 thereof, that the respondent had remained in custody for 2 years, 1 month and 2 days; that he was “not involved in any other case”; that charges had been framed on 20.07.2024 but only 2 prosecution witnesses out of 24 had been examined; that the trial was likely to take considerable time; that further incarceration would be violative of his right under Article 21 of the Constitution; and that, in the words of the High Court, “the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted bearing in mind the right to a speedy trial”.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner-State assailed the impugned order on the ground that the recovery being admittedly of commercial quantity, the rigors of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act stood squarely attracted, and that the High Court was bound to record satisfaction on the cumulative twin conditions under that section. The recording of such satisfaction, it was submitted, is the sine qua non for the grant of bail in offences involving commercial quantity, and the impugned order is devoid of any such finding. Reliance was placed on Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif, (2024) 11 SCC 372, State of Meghalaya v. Lalrintluanga Sailo and Another, (2024) 15 SCC 36, and Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 346. Reliance was further placed on the observations of this Court in Parwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No.3931 of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 12601 of 2023, that, having regard to the drug menace in the State of Punjab, the Courts ought to be highly circumspect while granting bail in such cases.
7. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order. It was submitted that the respondent remained in custody since 10.01.2024; that out of 24 prosecution witnesses cited, only 2 stand examined despite charges having been framed on 20.07.2024 and the trial is likely to take considerable time. The High Court has rightly held that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 cannot be defeated by mechanical application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It was further submitted that the mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50 and 52 of
(1) Bail – Recording of satisfaction on twin conditions under Section 37 of NDPS Act is mandatory and not merely directory.(2) Constitutional right under Article 21 and special provision of law under....
Courts must explicitly record twin satisfaction under NDPS Act Section 37(1)(b)(ii) for bail in commercial quantity cases; non-recording is jurisdictional defect rendering order unsustainable, even c....
The substantial custody of the accused, the period of trial, and the quantity of contraband in relation to commercial quantity are key factors in granting regular bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Ps....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
