Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged Drug Network Operator, Faults High Court for Ignoring Section 37 NDPS Twin Conditions
A Supreme Court bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court's bail order in a commercial-quantity heroin case, holding that compliance with the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is mandatory and cannot be bypassed by relying solely on custody period.
The Supreme Court on 2 June 2026 allowed the State of Punjab's appeal and set aside the bail granted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court to Balraj Singh @ Billa, an accused alleged to have operated a heroin trafficking network from inside Central Jail, Goindwal Sahib. The Court found that the High Court had not considered the twin conditions under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at all, even though the case involved commercial quantity of heroin. The bench also took note of a divergence across coordinate benches on what constitutes “prolonged incarceration” for bail purposes under special statutes, and flagged that the question is already before a larger bench.
How the Case Reached the Supreme Court
On 10 January 2024, police set up a checkpoint at a bridge on Canal Road, Village Veeram. A Mahindra XUV 300 bearing registration No. UP-15-DD-6521 attempted to flee on sighting the police party but stalled on the roadside. The two occupants, Gurjit Singh @ Geetu and Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora, were searched after notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and the arrival of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. A total of 1.465 kg of heroin was recovered. The FSL report confirmed the substance was diacetylmorphine/heroin.
The following day, 11 January 2024, the two co-accused disclosed that Balraj Singh @ Billa had directed them, while lodged in Central Jail, Goindwal Sahib, to collect the heroin from the canal area and hold it for further supply on his instructions. Investigation also revealed that the respondent was allegedly operating a drug trafficking network from jail using illegal mobile phones. He was arrayed as an accused vide DDR dated 11 January 2024.
Balraj Singh's bail application before the Special Court, Tarn Taran (B.A. 1868/2025) was rejected on 3 July 2025. He appealed to the Punjab and Haryana High Court (CRM-M-46383-2025). The High Court, vide order dated 15 October 2025, granted him regular bail. The State of Punjab challenged that order before the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 896 of 2026. Leave was granted and the matter was registered as a Criminal Appeal.
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 State Challenged It
The High Court's bail order rested on two considerations: that criminal antecedents alone cannot be the basis for refusing bail, and that the trial was unlikely to conclude soon given the period of custody already undergone. The High Court did not record any finding on the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act.
The State, represented by Mr. Shadan Farasat (senior counsel) and Mr. Rajat Bhardwaj (Additional Advocate General), pressed three grounds before the Supreme Court. First, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act had been ignored. Second, the case involved commercial quantity, making the twin-condition analysis mandatory. Third, the respondent had three antecedents of a similar nature under the NDPS Act, which the High Court had discounted.
The respondent countered that the High Court had rightly released him, that he had no connection with the FIR, that no recovery was effected from him personally, and that he had been in custody for one year and seven months with only 2 of 24 prosecution witnesses examined.
The Court's Reasoning on Section 37
The Court framed the central question as whether the High Court's bail order was in consonance with settled principles governing Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Section 37(1)(b) provides that where the Public Prosecutor opposes bail in a case involving commercial quantity, the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
The Court drew on State of Meghalaya v. Lalrintluanga Sailo & Anr. (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1751), where a coordinate bench had set aside a High Court bail order on the same ground. That decision had held that recording a finding on the twin conditions under Section 37 is sine qua non for granting bail in NDPS commercial-quantity cases, and that “a liberal approach ignoring the mandate under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is impermissible.”
The Court also referred to Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh (2023 SCC OnLine SC 346), State by the Inspector of Police v. B. Ramu (2024 SCC OnLine SC 4073), and Union of India v. Namdeo Ashruba Nakade (2025 SCC OnLine SC 3049). In Namdeo Ashruba Nakade, the Court had observed that where an accused is charged with offences carrying ten to twenty years' rigorous imprisonment, incarceration of over two years cannot be characterised as unreasonably long.
Applying these precedents, the Court found that upon a bare perusal of the impugned order, there was no consideration at all of the twin conditions. That alone was sufficient to set aside the bail. The Court then went further and applied the twin conditions itself. Given the respondent's three antecedents for similar NDPS offences, the Court held it could not be said he was unlikely to commit such an offence while on bail. On the period of custody, the Court noted that the respondent had served only one year and seven months against a potential maximum sentence of twenty years, and that Article 21 considerations of prolonged incarceration did not arise on these facts.
The Court's Observation on Divergent Bail Outcomes
The judgment contains a notable observation about inconsistency across coordinate benches in NDPS bail matters. The Court compiled a chart of recent decisions showing varying outcomes for accused persons who had served between two and four-and-a-half years in custody under the NDPS Act. In some cases bail was refused or set aside; in others it was granted. The periods of incarceration and the bench sizes were comparable across these decisions.
The Court observed that what constitutes “prolonged incarceration” for bail purposes has not been authoritatively defined by the Supreme Court or by statute. It acknowledged that judicial discretion is an important facet of justice dispensation but expressed concern that similarly situated persons in custody may receive different outcomes depending on the approach of the bench before them.
The Court noted that this precise question — how Article 21, prolonged incarceration, and statutory restrictions under special statutes intersect — has been referred to a larger bench in Tasleem Ahmed v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi (Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 2867/2026). In view of that reference, the bench declined to deliberate further on the issue, save to say that the paramount consideration is the interest of justice for all, and that where national sovereignty conflicts with personal liberty — particularly in the context of drug supply affecting the national economy and public health — the former must prevail.
The Court had already set aside the High Court's bail orders in respect of the other two co-accused in the same FIR, vide orders dated 24 April 2026 in Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 5075 of 2026 and Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 5020 of 2026.
Order
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The impugned order dated 15 October 2025 in CRM-M No. 46383 of 2025 (O&M) passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh was set aside. Balraj Singh @ Billa, who had already surrendered pursuant to the interim order of 7 April 2026, remains in custody. All pending applications were dismissed.