Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
State of Punjab – Appellant
Versus
Gurjit Singh @ Geetu – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2144 of 2026 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5075 of 2026)
Decided On : 24-04-2026
Key Points: - The judgment holds that explicit recording of twin satisfaction under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) is a mandatory jurisdictional pre-condition for bail in commercial quantity NDPS cases when the Public Prosecutor opposes (!) . - Non-recording of the twin satisfaction renders the bail order unsustainable and requires interference by the Court (!) (!) . - The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 cannot displacement the statutory rigors of Section 37; it must harmonize with, not displace, the NDPS mandate (!) . - The High Court’s reliance on diluting Section 37 due to speedy trial was improper; the order was set aside for lack of proper Section 37 findings (!) (!) . - Complete candour and full disclosure in bail petitions are mandatory, including details beyond bare case numbers and prior bail outcomes (!) . - The respondent’s prior bail history, including an earlier dismissal, should have been disclosed and considered in light of Section 37 norms (!) (!) . - The appeal resulted in setting aside the High Court order; the respondent was required to surrender and could apply afresh for bail (!) (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. commercial quantity heroin recovery and bail history (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments on section 37 rigour versus speedy trial (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. mandatory twin satisfaction under section 37 ndps (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. complete candour required in bail disclosures (Para 11) |
| 5. circumspection in punjab ndps bail grants (Para 12) |
| 6. bail order set aside for statutory non-compliance (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
ORDER :
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal calls in question the judgment and order dated 18.02.2026 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M No. 72303 of 2025, by which 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 prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10.01.2024, in the course of a naka operation near Village Veeram in District Tarn Taran, a Mahindra XUV-300 bearing registration No. UP-15-DD-6521 was stopped and searched. The respondent, who was driving the vehicle, and the co-accused Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora, were apprehended on the spot. Upon the search conducted, heroin was recovered from the possession of both the accused, 508 grams from the respondent and 957 grams from the co-accused Sukhwinder Singh, the aggregate being 1.465 kilograms, which is admittedly a “commercial quantity” for the purposes of the NDPS Act. The chargesheet was filed on 21.06.2024 and, on 20.07.2024, charges came to be framed by the learned Trial Court 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, bearing CRM-M No. 30865 of 2025, came to be dismissed on 27.08.2025. The respondent thereafter filed the second petition under of the , being CRM-M No. 72303 of 2025, which has been allowed by the impugned order.
5. By the impugned order, the High Court allowed the bail application of the respondent by recording in paragraph 8 thereof that the respondent had been in custody for 2 years, 1 month and 2 days; that he was on bail in other case ; that the co-accused stood enlarged on bail; that charges had been framed on 20.07.2024 but only 2 prosecution witnesses out of 24 had been examined and that the trial was likely to take considerable time and further incarceration would be violative of his right under Article 21 of the Constitution and “the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted bearing in mind the right to a speedy trial”. On the strength of these considerations, the High Court proceeded to enlarge the respondent on regular bail.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner-State urged that the recovery being of commercial quantity, the bar under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act operated in full rigour, and that the High Court was required to record its satisfaction on the twin cumulative conditions laid down in the provision. It was submitted that the recording of such satisfaction is a jurisdictional pre-condition and not a mere formality, and that the failure to do so renders the impugned order liable to interference by this Court. 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. Further reliance was 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, regard being had to the drug menace afflicting the State of Punjab, the Courts ought to be highly circumspect while granting bail, particularly where the ap
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....
(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....
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
