Supreme Court of India
NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAUversusLAKHWINDER SINGH
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 190
- Decided
- 29 January 2025
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- ABHAY S OKA
Holding
The Supreme Court held that, notwithstanding Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the earlier "half‑sentence" rule, an appellate court may grant suspension of sentence and bail pending appeal where the convict has served a substantial part of the term and the appeal is unlikely to be heard before the sentence is completed, to avoid violating Article 21.
Summary
The Narcotic Control Bureau appealed against a High Court order that suspended the ten‑year rigorous imprisonment sentence of Lakhwinder Singh, convicted under the NDPS Act, and granted him bail pending appeal after he had served 4½ years. The issue was whether the appellate court could grant such relief when the convict had not served half of the term, given Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the "half‑sentence" rule from the Legal Aid Committee case. The Supreme Court held that there is no rigid rule requiring the completion of half the sentence; courts may grant suspension of sentence and bail if a substantial part of the term has been served and the appeal is unlikely to be heard before the sentence ends. It emphasized that Section 37 does not bar such discretion and that denying bail in these circumstances would violate Article 21 and the right of appeal. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s order, while noting that bail may be cancelled if misused.
Issues considered
- Whether Section 37 of the NDPS Act restricts an appellate court from granting bail or suspension of sentence pending appeal when less than half of the sentence has been served.
- Whether the "half‑sentence" rule from the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee case is binding in NDPS convictions.
- Whether denial of bail in such circumstances violates Article 21 of the Constitution.
- Whether an appellate court has discretion to grant suspension of sentence and bail pending appeal in fixed‑term sentences.
Legislation cited
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court granting relief of suspension of sentence and bail to the respondent/accused pending an appeal against his conviction, under the 1985 Act. Headnotes† Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances – Art.21 – Suspension of sentence and bail, pending appeal against conviction – Power of courts – Conviction of the respondent for offence punishable under the 1985 Act and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment – Since the respondent had undergone
Subjects
Suspension of sentenceSuspension of sentence pending appealViolation of Article 21BailFixed-term sentencesSubstantial part of substantive sentenceAppeal not likely to be heard before accused undergoes entire sentence
Judgment
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1581 : 2025 INSC 190
Narcotic Control Bureau
v.
Lakhwinder Singh
(Criminal Appeal No. 475 of 2025)
29 January 2025
[Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the
High Court granting relief of suspension of sentence and bail to
the respondent/accused pending an appeal against his conviction,
under the 1985 Act.
Headnotes†
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.37 –
Constitution of India – Art.21 – Suspension of sentence and
bail, pending appeal against conviction – Power of courts –
Conviction of the respondent for offence punishable under the
1985 Act and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment –
Since the respondent had undergone incarceration for a period
of 4 ½ years out of the fixed term sentence of 10 years, and
as the appeal was not likely to be heard before the completion
of the sentence, the High Court granted relief of suspension
of sentence and bail to the respondent – Interference with:
Held: Not called for – If a case is made out for the grant of
suspension of sentence and/or bail in deserving cases on merits,
the Court is not powerless to grant relief of suspension of sentence
and bail pending an appeal, even if an accused has not undergone
half of the sentence – There cannot be a rule of thumb that a convict
cannot be released on bail pending an appeal against conviction
unless he has undergone half of substantive sentence – In the
case of fixed-term sentences, if the Courts start adopting a rigid
approach, in a large number of cases, till the appeal reaches the
stage of the final hearing, the accused would undergo the entire
sentence – This would be a violation of the rights of the accused
* Author
1582 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
u/Art.21 and would defeat the right of appeal – Furthermore, the
Appellate Court is bound by constraints of s.37 while considering
the prayer for the grant of bail during the pendency of an appeal –
However, if an accused has undergone a substantial part of the
substantive sentence and, considering the pendency of criminal
appeals, his appeal is not likely to be heard before the accused
undergoes the entire sentence, the appellate court can exercise
the power of releasing the accused on bail pending the appeal.
[Paras 5-8]
Case Law Cited
Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee representing Undertrial
Prisoners v. Union of India & Ors. [1994] Supp. 4 SCR 386 :
(1994) 6 SCC 731; Dadu v. State of Maharashtra [2000] Supp. 3
SCR 703 : (2000) 8 SCC 437 – referred to.
List of Acts
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985;
Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Suspension of sentence; Suspension of sentence pending appeal;
Violation of Article 21; Bail; Fixed-term sentences; Substantial
part of substantive sentence; Appeal not likely to be heard before
accused undergoes entire sentence.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
475 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.03.2021 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM No. 1175 of 2021
Appearances for Parties
Suryaprakash V. Raju, A.S.G., Ms. Sairica Raju, Rajan Kr.
Chourasia, Annam Venkatesh, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advs. for
the Appellant.
Akshay Verma, Ms. Sushma Verma, Abhinav Singh, Advs. for the
Respondent.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1583
Narcotic Control Bureau v. Lakhwinder Singh
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Abhay S. Oka, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard Shri S.V. Raju, learned ASG appearing for the appellant.
3. By the impugned order, the High Court has granted relief of suspension
of sentence and bail to the respondent/accused pending an appeal
against the conviction. The respondent was convicted for an offence
punishable under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 (for short, “the NDPS Act”). The substantive sentence of
the respondent is 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. In the appeal
of the year 2021, the High Court noted that the respondent had
undergone incarceration for a period of 4 ½ years out of the fixed
term sentence of 10 years. As the appeal was not likely to be heard
before the completion of the sentence, the High Court granted relief
of suspension of sentence and bail to the respondent.
4. The learned ASG relies upon a decision of this Court in the case
of the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee representing Undertrial
Prisoners vs. Union of India & Ors.1 He submitted that, as laid down
in the decision, unless the respondent had undergone a sentence
for the one-half period, he was not entitled to bail pending the final
hearing of the appeal against conviction. This is so when he is
already held guilty of the offence punishable under the NDPS Act.
5. The relevant part of paragraph 15 and paragraph 16 of the said
decision read thus:
“15. ... We, therefore, direct as under:
(i) Where the undertrial is accused of an offence(s) under
the Act prescribing a punishment of imprisonment of five
years or less and fine, such an undertrial shall be released
on bail if he has been in jail for a period which is not less
than half the punishment provided for the offence with which
he is charged and where he is charged with more than
1 (1994) 6 SCC 731
1584 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
one offence, the offence providing the highest punishment.
If the offence with which he is charged prescribes the
maximum fine, the bail amount shall be 50% of the said
amount with two sureties for like amount. If the maximum
fine is not prescribed bail shall be to the satisfaction of the
Special Judge concerned with two sureties for like amount.
(ii) Where the undertrial accused is charged with an
offence(s) under the Act providing for punishment
exceeding five years and fine, such an undertrial shall be
released on bail on the term set out in (i) above provided
that his bail amount shall in no case be less than Rs
50,000 with two sureties for like amount.
(iii) Where the undertrial accused is charged with an
offence(s) under the Act punishable with minimum
imprisonment of ten years and a minimum fine of Rupees
one lakh, such an undertrial shall be released on bail if
he has been in jail for not less than five years provided
he furnishes bail in the sum of Rupees one lakh with two
sureties for like amount.
(iv) Where an undertrial accused is charged for the
commission of an offence punishable under Sections 31
and 31-A of the Act, such an undertrial shall not be entitled
to be released on bail by virtue of this order.
The directives in clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) above shall be
subject to the following general conditions:
(i) The undertrial accused entitled to be released on bail
shall deposit his passport with the learned Judge of the
Special Court concerned and if he does not hold a passport
he shall file an affidavit to that effect in the form that may
be prescribed by the learned Special Judge. In the latter
case the learned Special Judge will, if he has reason to
doubt the accuracy of the statement, write to the Passport
Officer concerned to verify the statement and the Passport
Officer shall verify his record and send a reply within three
weeks. If he fails to reply within the said time, the learned
Special Judge will be entitled to act on the statement of
the undertrial accused;
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1585
Narcotic Control Bureau v. Lakhwinder Singh
(ii) the undertrial accused shall on being released on bail
present himself at the police station which has prosecuted
him at least once in a month in the case of those covered
under clause (i), once in a fortnight in the case of those
covered under clause (ii) and once in a week in the case
of those covered by clause (iii), unless leave of absence
is obtained in advance from the Special Judge concerned;
(iii) the benefit of the direction in clauses (ii) and (iii) shall
not be available to those accused persons who are, in the
opinion of the learned Special Judge, for reasons to be
stated in writing, likely to tamper with evidence or influence
the prosecution witnesses;
(iv) in the case of undertrial accused who are foreigners, the
Special Judge shall, besides impounding their passports,
insist on a certificate of assurance from the Embassy/
High Commission of the country to which the foreigner-
accused belongs, that the said accused shall not leave
the country and shall appear before the Special Court as
and when required;
(v) the undertrial accused shall not leave the area in relation
to which the Special Court is constituted except with the
permission of the learned Special Judge;
(vi) the undertrial accused may furnish bail by depositing
cash equal to the bail amount;
(vii) the Special Judge will be at liberty to cancel bail if
any of the above conditions are violated or a case for
cancellation of bail is otherwise made out; and
(viii) after the release of the undertrial accused pursuant
to this order, the cases of those undertrials who have not
been released and are in jail will be accorded priority and
the Special Court will proceed with them as provided in
Section 309 of the Code.
16. We may state that the above are intended to operate
as one-time directions for cases in which the accused
persons are in jail and their trials are delayed. They are
not intended to interfere with the Special Court’s power
1586 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
to grant bail under Section 37 of the Act. The Special
Court will be free to exercise that power keeping in view
the complaint of inordinate delay in the disposal of the
pending cases. The Special Court will, notwithstanding the
directions, be free to cancel bail if the accused is found to
be misusing it and grounds for cancellation of bail exist.
Lastly, we grant liberty to apply in case of any difficulty in
the implementation of this order.”
(underline supplied)
While dealing with an extraordinary situation arising out of the long
incarceration of undertrial prisoners, this Court directed that in certain
cases, the prisoners shall be released on bail after they complete a
certain period of imprisonment. The directions issued were by way
of a one-time measure. This judgment does not take away the power
of the Court to grant regular bail even if the period undergone by
a prisoner is less than what is provided in the said judgment. The
judgment of this Court cannot be read to mean that the powers of the
Court to grant bail have been curtailed. If we interpret the judgment
of this Court in such a manner, the Courts will be powerless to grant
bail or relief of suspension of sentence even if a case is made out
on merits. Therefore, in our view, if a case is made out for the grant
of suspension of sentence and/or bail in deserving cases on merits,
the Court is not powerless to grant relief of suspension of sentence
and bail pending an appeal, even if an accused has not undergone
half of the sentence. There cannot be a rule of thumb that a convict
cannot be released on bail pending an appeal against conviction
unless he has undergone half of substantive sentence.
6. In the case of fixed-term sentences, if the Courts start adopting a
rigid approach, in a large number of cases, till the appeal reaches
the stage of the final hearing, the accused would undergo the entire
sentence. This will be a violation of the rights of the accused under
Article 21 of the Constitution. Moreover, it will defeat the right of
appeal.
7. At this stage, the learned ASG appearing for the petitioner submitted
that the power of the Court was constrained by Section 37 of the
NDPS Act, which is applicable even at the stage of an appeal. He
relies upon a decision of this Court in the case of Dadu vs. State of
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1587
Narcotic Control Bureau v. Lakhwinder Singh
Maharashtra2. There is no dispute about the fact that the Appellate
Court is bound by constraints of Section 37 of the NDPS Act while
considering the prayer for the grant of bail during the pendency of
an appeal. However, if, in the facts of the case, an accused has
undergone a substantial part of the substantive sentence and,
considering the pendency of criminal appeals, his appeal is not likely
to be heard before the accused undergoes the entire sentence, the
Appellate Court can exercise the power of releasing the accused on
bail pending the appeal. If the relief of bail is denied in such a factual
situation only on the grounds of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, it will
amount to the violation of the rights of the accused under Article 21
of the Constitution of India.
8. In this case, the appeal preferred by the respondent is not likely to
be heard before he undergoes the entire sentence. He has already
undergone a substantial part of his 10-year sentence. Therefore,
there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order in the facts
of the case. The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. However, if the
respondent misuses the liberty granted to him under the impugned
order, the appellant can always apply for cancellation of bail.
Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
2 (2000) 8 SCC 437
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Suspension of sentence"Sign in to search