Supreme Court Cancels Bail in NDPS Case Where High Court Ignored Section 37 Twin Conditions

A Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh set aside Punjab and Haryana High Court bail for an accused alleged to run a drug network from jail.

The Supreme Court on 2 June 2026 set aside the bail granted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court to Balraj Singh @ Billa, an accused charged with offences involving commercial quantity of heroin under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Court found that the High Court had not applied the twin conditions mandated by Section 37 of the NDPS Act before releasing the accused. The judgment, authored by Justice Sanjay Karol, also flags a persistent inconsistency across coordinate benches of the Supreme Court on what constitutes “prolonged incarceration” for the purposes of bail under special statutes, and notes that a reference on that question is already pending before the Court.

How the Case Reached the Supreme Court

On 10 January 2024, police set up a checkpoint at a bridge on Canal Road, Village Veeram, Punjab. A Mahindra XUV 300 bearing a Uttar Pradesh registration attempted to flee but stalled. The two occupants, Gurjit Singh @ Geetu and Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora, could not satisfactorily explain the vehicle papers. A search conducted after notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and in the presence of the Deputy Superintendent of Police yielded 1.465 kg of heroin. The FSL report confirmed the substance as diacetylmorphine.

The following day, 11 January 2024, the co-accused disclosed that Balraj Singh @ Billa had directed them to collect the heroin from the canal area and hold it for further supply on his instructions — all while he was lodged in Central Jail, Goindwal Sahib. Investigation further revealed that the respondent was allegedly operating a drug trafficking network from inside jail using illegal mobile phones. He was arrayed as an accused through a DDR dated 11 January 2024.

Balraj Singh applied for regular bail before the Special Court, Tarn Taran. That application was rejected on 3 July 2025. He then approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which granted him regular bail on 15 October 2025 in CRM-M No. 46383 of 2025. The State of Punjab challenged that order before the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 896 of 2026, in which leave was granted and the matter was heard as a criminal appeal.

The Court noted that all three accused in the same FIR had obtained bail. In the cases of the other two, the Supreme Court had already set aside the High Court's bail orders on 24 April 2026 in connected criminal appeals arising from SLP (Crl.) Nos. 5075 and 5020 of 2026. The present appeal concerned only Balraj Singh.

By an interim order dated 7 April 2026, the Supreme Court directed Balraj Singh to surrender. He did so, as confirmed by an affidavit of Mr. Surendra Lamba dated 9 April 2026.

What the High Court Did — and Why the Supreme Court Found It Wanting

The High Court's reasoning rested on two planks: first, that criminal antecedents alone cannot be the basis for refusing bail; and second, that the period of custody and the likely delay in trial justified release. The High Court did not record any finding on the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Section 37 imposes a specific bar in cases involving commercial quantity. Before releasing such an accused on bail, a court must be satisfied of two things: that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty of the offence, and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The Public Prosecutor must also be given an opportunity to oppose the application.

The Supreme Court held that upon a bare reading of the impugned order, there was no consideration at all of these twin conditions. Since the case admittedly involved commercial quantity, that consideration was mandatory. The absence of any such finding rendered the bail order unsustainable.

The Court's Reasoning on Section 37 and Precedent

The Court drew on a consistent line of authority. In State of Meghalaya v. Lalrintluanga Sailo (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1751), the Supreme Court had held that satisfaction of the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) is a sine qua non for granting bail in commercial quantity cases, and that a liberal approach ignoring that mandate is impermissible. The Court in that case had also clarified that “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds — it requires substantial and probable causes for believing the accused is not guilty.

In State by the Inspector of Police v. B. Ramu (2024 SCC OnLine SC 4073) and Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh (2023 SCC OnLine SC 346), the Court had reiterated that satisfaction of Section 37 conditions is mandatory when commercial quantity is involved.

In Union of India v. Namdeo Ashruba Nakade (2025 SCC OnLine SC 3049), the Court had gone further, holding that where an accused is prima facie involved in organised drug trafficking and faces a sentence of ten to twenty years, it cannot be said that incarceration of over two years is unreasonably long so as to dispense with the mandatory requirements of Section 37.

Applying these principles, the Court found that Balraj Singh had three prior antecedents of a similar nature under the NDPS Act. That fact alone meant the Court could not be satisfied that he was not likely to commit such an offence while on bail — one of the two mandatory conditions. The Court also rejected the argument that his period of custody of one year and seven months warranted bail, noting that if convicted he could face a maximum sentence of twenty years. On those facts, the period of incarceration did not constitute prolonged custody warranting interference under Article 21.

The Unresolved Question of Prolonged Incarceration

The judgment does not stop at the facts of this case. Justice Karol observed that while the Court has on several occasions recognised that prolonged incarceration warrants bail under Article 21, the application of that principle is not uniform. Across coordinate benches, similarly situated accused persons in NDPS commercial quantity cases have received different outcomes depending on the approach of the bench. The Court set out a comparative chart of seven decisions, showing periods of incarceration ranging from two years four months to four years six months, with outcomes varying between bail granted and bail refused or set aside.

The Court noted that what constitutes “prolonged incarceration” for bail purposes has not been authoritatively defined by the Supreme Court or by statute. It declined to resolve that question in this case, pointing out that in Tasleem Ahmed v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi (Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 2867/2026), the Court has already referred the question of how constitutional courts should approach bail under special statutes where Article 21, prolonged incarceration, and statutory restrictions intersect. The Court said it would await that reference.

The Court did, however, record its view that where there is any conflict between the sovereignty of the country and personal liberty, the former must prevail — particularly when the offence involves supply of drugs that affects the national economy and public health.

Outcome

The Supreme Court allowed the State of Punjab's appeal. The order dated 15 October 2025 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CRM-M No. 46383 of 2025 granting regular bail to Balraj Singh @ Billa was set aside. All pending applications were dismissed. Since Balraj Singh had already surrendered pursuant to the interim order of 7 April 2026, he remains in custody.