State of Punjab v. Balraj Singh
Supreme Court of India, 2 June 2026, 2 judges, 2026 INSC 618
The Court set aside a High Court order granting regular bail in an NDPS case involving commercial quantity of heroin, because the High Court had not considered the twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act at all.
Facts
On 10.01.2024 police at a check point recovered 1.465 kg of heroin from two men in a car, and an FIR was registered under Sections 21(c), 29, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act. On the co-accused's disclosure, the respondent, then lodged in Central Jail, Goindwal Sahib, was arrayed as an accused on the allegation that he had directed them to collect and keep the heroin and that he ran a drug trafficking network from inside jail using illegal mobile phones. The Special Court, Tarn Taran rejected his bail application, but the High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail, relying on the period of custody and the likely delay in trial and observing that antecedents alone could not justify refusal. The State appealed, pointing to Section 37, the commercial quantity and three similar antecedents. This Court had directed the respondent to surrender by an interim order.
Questions before the Court
- Was the High Court's order granting bail in consonance with the settled principles of law concerning Section 37 of the NDPS Act?
- Did the respondent's period of custody amount to prolonged incarceration warranting bail in view of Article 21 of the Constitution?
What the Court held
- In cases involving commercial quantity of narcotics, consideration of the twin conditions in Section 37 of the NDPS Act is mandatory. The High Court's order showed no consideration of them at all and could not be sustained.
- Tested against the twin conditions, no case for bail was made out: the respondent had antecedents for offences of the same nature under the NDPS Act, so it could not be said that he was not likely to commit such an offence while on bail.
- Custody of 1 year 7 months, against a possible maximum sentence of twenty years, was not a long period of incarceration warranting interference in view of Article 21.
- Noting that what constitutes prolonged incarceration has not been expounded and that the question has been referred in Tasleem Ahmed, the Court declined to deliberate further, observing that where sovereignty of the country and personal liberty conflict, the former shall prevail. The appeal was allowed and the bail order set aside.
Why it matters
The judgment restates that a court granting bail in a commercial quantity NDPS case must record a finding on both conditions of Section 37, and that a liberal approach based only on custody and trial delay is not enough. It also records the uneven application of the prolonged incarceration ground among coordinate benches, setting out a chart of decisions, while leaving the question to the reference pending in Tasleem Ahmed.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“It is not in dispute that the case at hand, involves commercial quantity. In such a scenario, consideration and reference to the twin conditions enumerated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act was mandatory. Upon a bare perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that there has been no consideration at all by the High Court on the twin conditions. In such a scenario, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.”
“Upon consideration of the case of the respondent against the twin conditions laid down in Section 37, we are of the view that no case for bail is made out. There are antecedents involving commission of offences of the very same nature under the NDPS Act, therefore it cannot be said that he is not likely to commit such an offence while on bail.”
“While this Court has recognized on several occasions that prolonged incarceration warrants the grant of bail in view of Article 21 of the Constitution, we have noticed that the application thereof is not uniform. Moreover, there is no doubt that what constitutes “prolonged incarceration” for the purposes of bail, has not been expounded by this Court or the law of the land.”
Provisions interpreted
Case and bench
- Parties
- State of Punjab v. Balraj Singh @ Billa
- Case
- Criminal Appeal No. ____ of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 896 of 2026)
- Decided
- 2 June 2026
- Bench
- Sanjay Karol, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
- Opinions
- Judgment of the Court by Sanjay Karol, J., signed also by Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J. No separate opinion appears in the file.