Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
State of Punjab – Appellant
Versus
Balraj Singh @ Billa – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 3037 of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 896 of 2026)
Decided On : 02-06-2026
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 37 read with Sections 21(c)/29/61 and 85 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 483 – Constitution of India – Article 21 – Grant of bail – Challenge as to – Seizure of Heroin – Consideration on twin conditions under Section 37 of NDPS Act is essential by concerned Court – Satisfaction with conditions laid down under Section 37 of NDPS Act is mandatory while entertaining prayer for bail involving commercial quantity of narcotic drugs – Case at hand, involves commercial quantity – There has been no consideration at all by High Court on twin conditions – Impugned order cannot be sustained in eyes of law – No case for bail is made out – There are antecedents involving commission of offences of very same nature under NDPS Act and it cannot be said that he is not likely to commit such an offence while on bail – Respondent has only undergone 1 year 7 months, and if found guilty maximum sentence of twenty years may be imposed upon him – It cannot be said that he has suffered incarceration for a long period, warranting interference in view of Article 21 of Constitution – Impugned order passed by High Court set aside. (Paras 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 22 and 23)
(B) Criminal Law – While judicial discretion is an important facet of justice dispensation, Court cannot overlook fact that similarly situated persons in custody may receive different outcomes, dependent on approach adopted by respective Bench. (Para 21)
Facts of the case:
Vide Judgment passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, respondent herein came to be released on regular bail in connection with FIR dated 10.01.2024 registered under Sections 21(c)/29/61 and 85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Findings of Court:
Should there be any conflict between sovereignty of country and personal liberty, former shall prevail, particularly, when a war is waged against nation, be it in the form of supply of drugs, which vitally affects national economy and health of people.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - The High Court failed to consider twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act for bail in a commercial quantity case, which the Supreme Court held mandatory (paras p_39, p_28, p_35, p_33, p_40). - Section 37(1)(b)(ii) requires that where the Public Prosecutor opposes bail, the court must be satisfied there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail (paras p_23, p_25, p_29). - In cases involving commercial quantity, the court must ensure satisfaction of Section 37 conditions; failure to do so renders bail orders unsustainable (paras p_39, p_40). - The Court set aside the High Court’s bail grant, noting antecedents and likelihood of re-offending as relevant to Section 37 considerations (paras p_40, p_41). - There is recognition that similarly situated offenders may receive different outcomes depending on the bench’s approach, but Section 37 dictates a mandatory standard in commercial quantity cases (paras p_21, p_42). (!) (!) - The appeal resulted in allowing the State’s challenge and setting aside the High Court order granting bail (paras p_85, p_85). (!)
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL, J.
Leave granted.
2. The present appeal has been filed against impugned judgment and order dated 15.10.2025 in CRM-M No. 46383 of 2025 (O&M) passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, whereby the respondent herein came to be released on regular bail in connection with FIR No. 06 dated 10.01.2024 registered under Section 21(c)/29/61 and 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 19851[Hereinafter ‘NDPS Act’.].
Brief Facts
3. The case set up in the subject FIR against the accused persons is that on 10.01.2024, the police had set-up a check point at the bridge on Canal Road, Village Veeram, and were conducting a check of the vehicles passing. Upon seeing the police party, a car (Mahindra XUV 300) bearing registration No. UP-15-DD-6521 attempted to flee, however the car got switched off and stopped on the katcha side of the road. Upon enquiry, the driver of the vehicle identified himself as Gurjit Singh @ Geetu and the other occupant stated his name as Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora. Since no satisfactory response was received qua the papers of the the car, the police suspected presence of intoxicant material in their possession.
4. Consequently, notice was issued to them under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, arrived at the stop to conduct search. He prepared consent memos for the search and signature of both these persons was taken. Upon search, a total of 1. 465 Kg., of heroin was recovered from their possession. The said contraband was weighed, sealed and seized vide recovery memos. This was after compliance of the statutory provisions mandated under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The FSL report confirmed that the recovered substance is diacetylmorphine/heroin.
5. The case against the respondent herein, Balraj Singh @ Billa, is that the co-accused persons have made a disclosure on 11.01.2024 that the respondent had directed them to collect the heroin from the canal area and keep it for further supply on his instructions, while lodged in Central Jail, Goindwal Sahib. Pursuant thereto, he came to be arrayed as an accused vide DDR dated 11.01.2024. It was further found during investigation that the respondent is operating a drug trafficking network from inside jail using illegal mobile phones.
6. The respondent preferred an application seeking regular bail before Ld. Judge Special Court Tarn Taran, which came to be numbered as B.A. 1868/2025. The same came to be rejected vide order dated 03.07.2025. An appeal was preferred by the respondent before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh which came to be numbered as CRM-M-46383-2025 (O&M).
7. The High Court vide the impugned order dated 15.10.2025 granted regular bail to the respondent. On the aspect of criminal antecedents, the Court observed that antecedents alone cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer of bail. The Court relied upon the period of custody and the likelihood of the trial taking a considerable time to release the respondent on bail.
8. It is a matter of record that in relation to the very same FIR, all three accused persons had preferred applications for bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. These applications were allowed and all three accused persons were granted bail vide separate orders. Here we may observe that in relation to the other two accused persons, this Court vide orders dated 24.04.2026 in Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 5075 of 2026 and Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No. 5020 of 2026 has already set aside the order granting bail by the High Court, hence we need not elaborately deal with the legal issues therein.
9. In the instant case after hearing the learned counsel for the parties this Court vide the interim order dated 07.04.2026 had directed the instant respondent Balraj Singh @ Billa to surrender. It is a matter of record that the present respondent has thus surrendered, as is evident from the affidavit of Mr. Surendra Lamba, dated 09.
(1) Grant of bail – Satisfaction with conditions laid down under Section 37 of NDPS Act is mandatory while entertaining prayer for bail involving commercial quantity of narcotic drugs.(2) Justice Dis....
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....
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
