The Supreme Court has held that bail cannot be granted in commercial quantity Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) cases without satisfying Section 37 under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
The bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh set aside the bail granted to an accused allegedly involved in a drug trafficking network operating from inside a Punjab jail.
The bench held that the Punjab and Haryana High Court had failed to consider the mandatory twin conditions prescribed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act while granting regular bail in a case involving commercial quantity of heroin.
The case originated from an FIR registered on January 10, 2024, under Sections 21(c), 29, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act. According to the prosecution, Punjab Police had established a checkpoint near Village Veeram when a Mahindra XUV-300 attempted to evade inspection. Upon interception and search conducted in compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, authorities recovered 1.465 kilograms of heroin from two occupants of the vehicle. The forensic report later confirmed the substance to be heroin (diacetylmorphine).
During investigation, the co-accused allegedly disclosed that they had been acting under the directions of Balraj Singh, who was lodged in Central Jail, Goindwal Sahib. Investigators alleged that the respondent was coordinating a drug trafficking operation from inside prison and using illicit mobile phones to manage narcotics distribution. On the basis of these disclosures, he was subsequently implicated in the case.
The Special Court at Tarn Taran had rejected the respondent’s bail application in July 2025. However, the Punjab and Haryana High Court later granted him regular bail in October 2025.
While granting relief, the High Court observed that criminal antecedents alone could not justify denial of bail and took into account the period of custody already undergone as well as the likelihood of delay in completion of the trial. At the time, the respondent had spent approximately one year and seven months in custody, while only two of the twenty-four prosecution witnesses had been examined.
The Supreme Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable. Referring extensively to Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Bench emphasized that offences involving commercial quantities of narcotic substances attract stringent restrictions on grant of bail.
Section 37 mandates that where the Public Prosecutor opposes bail, the court must be satisfied that:
- There are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence; and
- The accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
The Court reiterated that these statutory requirements are not mere formalities but mandatory preconditions that must be expressly considered before granting bail in NDPS cases involving commercial quantities.
The judgment relied upon earlier Supreme Court decisions including State of Meghalaya v. Lalrintluanga Sailo, Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh, State by the Inspector of Police v. B. Ramu, and Union of India v. Namdeo Ashruba Nakade, all of which stress strict adherence to Section 37.
After examining the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court observed that there was no discussion whatsoever regarding the statutory twin conditions under Section 37.
The Bench held that in a case involving commercial quantity of heroin, consideration of these conditions was mandatory. Since the High Court failed to record any satisfaction regarding the accused’s innocence or the likelihood of reoffending, the order granting bail could not survive judicial scrutiny.
The Court further noted that the respondent had prior criminal antecedents involving offences of a similar nature under the NDPS Act. Consequently, the Court concluded that it could not be said that he was unlikely to commit offences if released on bail.
The respondent had argued that he had already undergone one year and seven months of incarceration and that the trial was proceeding slowly. However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument.
The Bench observed that the alleged offences carry punishment extending up to twenty years’ imprisonment. In such circumstances, a custody period of one year and seven months could not be regarded as so excessive as to justify relaxation of the stringent statutory conditions under the NDPS Act.
While deciding the appeal, the Court also highlighted an emerging inconsistency in judicial approaches concerning prolonged incarceration and bail under special statutes such as the NDPS Act.
The Bench referred to several recent decisions where different periods of custody had resulted in divergent outcomes regarding bail. It noted that Indian law presently lacks a clearly defined standard as to what constitutes “prolonged incarceration” for the purpose of granting bail.
The Court pointed out that the issue has recently been referred for authoritative consideration in Tasleem Ahmed v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, which concerns the intersection of Article 21 rights, prolonged incarceration, and statutory restrictions on bail under special laws.
In a noteworthy observation, the Supreme Court underscored the societal and national impact of narcotics offences. The Bench remarked that where personal liberty comes into conflict with threats to national interests, particularly those arising from drug trafficking, the larger public interest must prevail.
The Court observed that the supply of narcotic substances adversely affects both the national economy and public health and therefore requires a stringent judicial response.
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, which had granted regular bail to Balraj Singh alias Billa.
The Court held that the mandatory requirements under Section 37 of the NDPS Act had been completely overlooked and that the respondent failed to satisfy the statutory conditions necessary for release on bail.
Case Details
Case Title: State Of Punjab Versus Balraj Singh @ Billa
Citation: JURISHOUR-1515-SC-2026
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 896 of 2026
Date: 02/06/2026
Read More: Married Daughters Eligible for Fair Price Shop Allotment: Supreme Court
