The Supreme Court has set aside orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court granting bail to two accused in a commercial quantity drug recovery case, holding that compliance with the mandatory twin conditions under Section 37 is indispensable.
The bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih has observed that in cases involving commercial quantity, Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act imposes mandatory conditions that must be satisfied before granting bail. These include recording satisfaction that (i) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the offence, and (ii) the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
The appeals arose from orders passed by the High Court granting regular bail to the accused persons, including Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora and Gurjit Singh @ Geetu, in connection with an FIR registered on 10.01.2024 at Police Station Khalra, District Tarn Taran, under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The case involved recovery of 1.465 kilograms of heroin, which constitutes a “commercial quantity” under the statute.
The High Court had granted bail primarily on the grounds of prolonged incarceration (over two years), slow progress of trial (only 2 out of 24 witnesses examined), and the accused’s right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. It had further observed that the rigours of Section 37 could be diluted in such circumstances.
The Court emphasized that these twin conditions are not procedural formalities but jurisdictional prerequisites. It held that failure to record such satisfaction renders a bail order legally unsustainable.
Importantly, the Court clarified that the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 cannot be invoked to override or dilute the statutory mandate of Section 37. Instead, both must be harmoniously construed. The High Court’s observation that Section 37 rigours could be diluted due to delay in trial was held to be contrary to settled law.
The Supreme Court also found serious factual inconsistencies and lack of due diligence in the High Court’s reasoning. In one instance, the High Court recorded that the accused had no prior involvement in any case, whereas the record showed admission of another FIR by the accused himself. Such contradictions, the Court noted, indicated non-application of mind.
Further, the Court criticized the non-disclosure of earlier bail applications by the accused. It held that in successive bail petitions, it is incumbent upon the applicant to disclose the outcome of previous petitions and demonstrate change in circumstances. Failure to do so undermines the principle of candour required in discretionary relief.
The Court reiterated that in NDPS cases, particularly involving commercial quantity, courts must exercise heightened scrutiny, especially in light of the serious societal impact of drug offences. It relied on prior precedents including Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif and State of Meghalaya v. Lalrintluanga Sailo, which affirm the mandatory nature of Section 37 conditions.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned High Court orders, and directed the accused persons to surrender before the Trial Court within one week. Liberty was granted to apply afresh for bail in accordance with law.
Case Details
Case Title: State Of Punjab Versus Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora
Citation: JURISHOUR-930-SC-2026
Case No.: SLP (CRL.) NO.5020 OF 2026
Date: 24/04/2026
