Supreme Court of India
STATE OF PUNJABversusBALRAJ SINGH @ BILLA
- Citation
- 2026 INSC 618
- Decided
- 2 June 2026
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- SANJAY KAROL
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s bail order was illegal because it did not satisfy the mandatory twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and therefore set aside the order.
Summary
The State of Punjab appealed a High Court order that granted regular bail to Balraj Singh, who was accused of directing a heroin trafficking network from inside jail and was charged under Sections 21(c), 29, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act. The High Court had relied on the length of the respondent's custody and the anticipated duration of trial, ignoring the mandatory conditions of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) for offences involving commercial quantities of narcotics. The Supreme Court examined whether the twin conditions—opportunity for the public prosecutor to oppose and the court’s satisfaction of reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to reoffend—were fulfilled. Citing precedents such as State of Meghalaya v. Lalrintluanga Sailo and Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh, the Court held that the High Court failed to consider these statutory requirements. It further noted the respondent’s prior similar offences and the relatively short period of incarceration, concluding that bail could not be justified. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s bail order and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court's grant of regular bail complied with the mandatory twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act in a case involving commercial quantity of narcotics.
- Whether the presence of prior similar offences and the likelihood of reoffending preclude the grant of bail.
- Whether the period of custody and anticipated trial duration can override the statutory bar on bail under Section 37.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023s. 483
- Constitution of Indias. Article 21
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985s. 21(c), s. 29, s. 37, s. 50, s. 61, s. 85
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the order granting bail of the High Court is in consonance with the settled principles of law concerning s.37 of the NDPS Act. Headnotes† Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.37 – Offences to be cognizable and and 85 NDPS Act against the respondent – Case against the respondent that the co-accused persons made a disclosure that the respondent had directed them to collect the heroin from the canal area and keep it for further supply on his instructions, while lodged in the Jail –
Subjects
Order granting bailSettled principles of law concerning s.37 NDPS ActDrug trafficking network from inside jail using illegal mobile phonesRegular bailPeriod of custodyLikelihood of trial taking considerable time
Judgment
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 39 : 2026 INSC 618
State of Punjab
v.
Balraj Singh @ Billa
(Criminal Appeal No. 3037 of 2026 )
02 June 2026
[Sanjay Karol* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the order granting bail of the High Court is
in consonance with the settled principles of law concerning s.37
of the NDPS Act.
Headnotes†
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.37 –
Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable – FIR registered
u/ss.21(c)/29/61 and 85 NDPS Act against the respondent –
Case against the respondent that the co-accused persons
made a disclosure that the respondent had directed them to
collect the heroin from the canal area and keep it for further
supply on his instructions, while lodged in the Jail – Pursuant
thereto, he came to be arrayed as an accused, and that the
respondent operating drug trafficking network from inside jail
using illegal mobile phones – Respondent filed application
seeking regular bail and was rejected – However, in the
appeal, the High Court granted regular bail after relying upon
the period of custody and the likelihood of the trial taking a
considerable time – Correctness:
Held: When it comes to cases involving commercial quantity
of narcotics, the mandatory requirements of s.37 ought to be
considered – Instant case involves commercial quantity – In such
a scenario, consideration and reference to the twin conditions
enumerated u/s.37 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, thus, 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 s.37, no case for bail made out – There are antecedents
involving commission of offences of the very same nature under
* Author
40 [2026] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the NDPS Act, thus, it cannot be said that he is not likely to commit
such an offence while on bail – Moreover, the respondent has
only undergone 1 year 7 months, and if found guilty a maximum
sentence of twenty years may be imposed upon him – Thus, it
cannot be said that he suffered incarceration for a long period,
warranting interference in view of Art.21 – Paramount consideration
is nothing but interest of justice for all – Should there be any
conflict between the sovereignty of country and personal liberty,
undoubtedly, the former shall prevail, particularly, when a war is
waged against the nation, be it in the form of supply of drugs,
which vitally affects the national economy and health of the
people – Thus, the impugned order passed by the High Court
set aside. [Paras 17-22]
Case Law Cited
State of Meghalaya v. Lalrintluanga Sailo & Anr. [2024] 7 SCR
1314 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1751; Union of India v. Ajay Kumar
Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 346; Ashok Dhankad v. State NCT
of Delhi [2025] 8 SCR 785 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1690; State by
the Inspector of Police v. B. Ramu, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4073;
Union of India v. Namdeo Ashruba Nakade, 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 3049; Tasleem Ahmed v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Crl. A.
@ SLP (Crl.) No. 2867/2026 – referred to.
List of Acts
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Bhartiya
Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Order granting bail; Settled principles of law concerning s.37 NDPS
Act; Drug trafficking network from inside jail using illegal mobile
phones; Regular bail; Period of custody; Likelihood of trial taking
considerable time.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
3037 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.10.2025 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM No. 46383 of 2025
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 41
State of Punjab v. Balraj Singh @ Billa
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Shadan Farasat, A.A.G./Sr. Adv., Rajat Bhardwaj, A.A.G., Karan
Sharma, Harshit Anand, Arkaprava Das, Ms. Varisha Sharma.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
M/S Mps Legal, Prabhat Chaurasia, Jashandeep Sandhu, Jasdeep
Singh Dhillon, Anirudh Jamwal, Aditya Bajaj, Ms. Kenisha Savla.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Sanjay Karol, J.
Leave granted.
2. The present appeal has been filed against impugned judgment
and order dated 15.10.2025 in CRM-M No. 46383 of 2025 (O&M)
passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh,
whereby the respondent herein came to be released on regular bail
in connection with FIR No. 06 dated 10.01.2024 registered under
Section 21(c)/29/61 and 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 19851.
Brief Facts
3. The case set up in the subject FIR against the accused persons is
that on 10.01.2024, the police had set-up a check point at the bridge
on Canal Road, Village Veeram, and were conducting a check of
the vehicles passing. Upon seeing the police party, a car (Mahindra
XUV 300) bearing registration No. UP-15-DD-6521 attempted to
flee, however the car got switched off and stopped on the katcha
side of the road. Upon enquiry, the driver of the vehicle identified
himself as Gurjit Singh @ Geetu and the other occupant stated his
name as Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora. Since no satisfactory response
was received qua the papers of the the car, the police suspected
presence of intoxicant material in their possession.
1 Hereinafter ‘NDPS Act’.
42 [2026] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
4. Consequently, notice was issued to them under Section 50 of the
NDPS Act and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, arrived at the
stop to conduct search. He prepared consent memos for the search
and signature of both these persons was taken. Upon search, a total
of 1. 465 Kg., of heroin was recovered from their possession. The said
contraband was weighed, sealed and seized vide recovery memos.
This was after compliance of the statutory provisions mandated
under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The FSL report confirmed that
the recovered substance is diacetylmorphine/heroin.
5. The case against the respondent herein, Balraj Singh @ Billa, is
that the co-accused persons have made a disclosure on 11.01.2024
that the respondent had directed them to collect the heroin from the
canal area and keep it for further supply on his instructions, while
lodged in Central Jail, Goindwal Sahib. Pursuant thereto, he came
to be arrayed as an accused vide DDR dated 11.01.2024. It was
further found during investigation that the respondent is operating
a drug trafficking network from inside jail using illegal mobile
phones.
6. The respondent preferred an application seeking regular bail before
Ld. Judge Special Court Tarn Taran, which came to be numbered
as B.A. 1868/2025. The same came to be rejected vide order dated
03.07.2025. An appeal was preferred by the respondent before the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh which came to
be numbered as CRM-M-46383-2025 (O&M).
7. The High Court vide the impugned order dated 15.10.2025 granted
regular bail to the respondent. On the aspect of criminal antecedents,
the Court observed that antecedents alone cannot be the basis for
refusal of prayer of bail. The Court relied upon the period of custody
and the likelihood of the trial taking a considerable time to release
the respondent on bail.
8. It is a matter of record that in relation to the very same FIR, all three
accused persons had preferred applications for bail under Section 483
of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. These applications
were allowed and all three accused persons were granted bail vide
separate orders. Here we may observe that in relation to the other
two accused persons, this Court vide orders dated 24.04.2026 in
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 5075 of 2026 and Crl. Appeal @ SLP
(Crl) No. 5020 of 2026 has already set aside the order granting bail
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 43
State of Punjab v. Balraj Singh @ Billa
by the High Court, hence we need not elaborately deal with the
legal issues therein.
9. In the instant case after hearing the learned counsel for the parties
this Court vide the interim order dated 07.04.2026 had directed the
instant respondent Balraj Singh @ Billa to surrender. It is a matter
of record that the present respondent has thus surrendered, as is
evident from the affidavit of Mr. Surendra Lamba, dated 09.04.2026.
Submissions
10. The appellant, State of Punjab, has submitted that vide the impugned
order the respondent has been erroneously granted bail. We have
heard Mr. Shadan Farasat, learned senior counsel and Mr. Rajat
Bhardwaj, learned Additional Advocate General. The substantial
grounds of challenge are as follows:
(a) The bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act has been ignored
by the High Court, in violation of the ratio laid down in State
of Meghalaya v. Lalrintluanga Sailo & Anr.2 and Union of
India v. Ajay Kumar Singh3;
(b) The present case involves commercial quantity, therefore, the
respondent ought not to have been released on bail; and
(c) Respondent has 3 antecedents of similar nature, which has
been ignored by the High Court.
11. The respondent has submitted that the High Court has rightly
released him on regular bail. He has no connection with the subject
FIR and has been falsely implicated in the matter. Pertinently, no
reference has been made to him in the FIR and no recovery was
effected from him. The respondent has been incarcerated for 1
year 7 months and investigation stood completed. Only 2 out of
24 prosecution witnesses were examined, therefore the trial is not
likely to conclude soon.
Our View
12. At the outset, it has been reiterated by this Court that on many
occasions, an appeal against grant of bail and an application for
2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1751.
3 2023 SCC OnLine SC 346.
44 [2026] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
cancellation of bail stand on a different footing [See: Ashok Dhankad
v. State NCT of Delhi 4]. Coming to the case at hand, in our view,
the issue which arises for our consideration is whether the order
granting bail of the High Court is in consonance with the settled
principles of law concerning Section 37 of the NDPS Act?
13. For ready reference, Section 37 of the NDPS Act reads as follows:
“37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable. –
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), —
(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be
cognizable;
(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for
[offences under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section
27-A and also for offences involving commercial
quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own
bond unless—
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an
opportunity to oppose the application for such
release, and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the
application, the court is satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that he is not
guilty of such offence and that he is not likely
to commit any offence while on bail.
(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b)
of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)4, or any
other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.]”
(emphasis supplied)
14. As rightly submitted by the appellant State, this Court, in Lalrintluanga
Sailo (Supra) while setting aside the bail granted by the High Court
therein had held that consideration on the twin conditions under
4 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1690.
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 45
State of Punjab v. Balraj Singh @ Billa
Section 37 of the NDPS Act is essential by the concerned Court. It
was observed:
“5. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position
that in cases involving commercial quantity of narcotic
drugs or psychotropic substances, while considering
the application of bail, the court is bound to ensure the
satisfaction of conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the
NDPS Act. The said provision reads thus:
“37. (1)(b)(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes
the application, the court is satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty
of such offence and that he is not likely to commit
any offence while on bail.”
... ... ...
7. In the decision in Collector of Customs v. Ahmadalieva
Nodira [Collector of Customs v. Ahmadalieva Nodira, (2004)
3 SCC 549 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 834] , the three-Judge Bench
of this Court considered the provisions under Section 37(1)
(b) as also Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, with regard
to the expression “reasonable grounds” used therein.
This Court held that it means something more than the
prima facie grounds and that it contemplates substantial
and probable causes for believing that the accused is
not guilty of the alleged offence. Furthermore, it was held
that the reasonable belief contemplated in the provision
would require existence of such facts and circumstances
as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that
the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence.
... ... ...
10. Thus, the provisions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the
NDPS Act and the decisions referred supra revealing
the consistent view of this Court that while considering
the application for bail made by an accused involved
in an offence under the NDPS Act a liberal approach
ignoring the mandate under Section 37 of the NDPS Act
is impermissible. Recording a finding mandated under
46 [2026] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which is sine qua non for
granting bail to an accused under the NDPS Act cannot
be avoided while passing orders on such applications.”
(emphasis supplied)
15. To the similar effect, this Court in State by the Inspector of Police
v. B. Ramu5 reiterated that satisfaction with the conditions laid down
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is mandatory while entertaining a
prayer for bail involving commercial quantity of narcotic drugs. [See
also: Ajay Kumar Singh alias Pappu (Supra)]
16. In similar circumstances, this Court in Union of India v. Namdeo
Ashruba Nakade6 observed that the mandatory nature of Section
37 cannot be dispensed with:
“12. Prima facie this Court is of the opinion that the
Respondent-accused is involved in drug trafficking in an
organized manner. Consequently, no case for dispensing
with mandatory requirement of Section 37 of the NDPS
Act is made out in the present matter.
13. Moreover, this Court is of the view that as the accused
has been charged with offences punishable with ten to
twenty years rigorous imprisonment, it cannot be said that
the Respondent has been incarcerated for an unreasonably
long time.”
(emphasis supplied)
17. Keeping in view the above expositions of law, we now proceed to
examine the impugned order. The abovementioned decisions of this
Court display the consistent view that when it comes to cases involving
commercial quantity of narcotics, the mandatory requirements of
Section 37 ought to be considered. 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
5 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4073.
6 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3049.
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 47
State of Punjab v. Balraj Singh @ Billa
High Court on the twin conditions. In such a scenario, the impugned
order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
18. 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.
19. Moreover, the respondent has only undergone 1 year 7 months,
and if found guilty a maximum sentence of twenty years may be
imposed upon him. Therefore, it cannot be said that he has suffered
incarceration for a long period, warranting interference in view of
Article 21 of the Constitution.
20. 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.
21. While judicial discretion is an important facet of justice dispensation,
this Court cannot overlook the fact that similarly situated persons in
custody may receive different outcomes, dependent on the approach
adopted by the respective bench. At this stage, we deem it appropriate
to refer to a chart of decisions by coordinate benches of this Court,
including a chart submitted by Mr. Mr. Shadan Farasat, learned
senior counsel on this aspect:
Case Name Period of Outcome Bench Statute
Incarceration involved
Harpreet Singh Talwar @ 2 years 9 Bail not 2JB NDPS &
Kabir Talwar v. State of months granted UAPA
Gujarat [2025 INSC 662]
Union of India v. Vigin More than 3 Order 2JB NDPS
K. Varghese [2025 SCC years granting bail
OnLine SC 2440] set aside
Union of India v. Namdeo More than 2 Order 2JB NDPS
Ashruba Nakade [2025 years granting bail
SCC OnLine SC 3049] set aside
48 [2026] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Rabi Prakash v. State 3 years 6 Bail granted 2JB NDPS
of Odisha [2023 SCC months
OnLine SC 1109]
A n k u r C h a u d h a r y v. More than 2 Bail granted 2JB NDPS
State of M.P. [2024 SCC years
OnLine SC 2730]
Narcotic Control Bureau 4 years 6 Bail granted 2JB NDPS
v. Lakhwinder Singh months
[2025 SCC OnLine SC
366]
Badsha Sk. v. State of 2 years 4 Bail granted 2JB NDPS
W.B. [2023 SCC OnLine months
SC 1867]
22. However, we note that recently this Court in Tasleem Ahmed v.
State Govt. of NCT of Delhi7 has referred the question concerning
the approach of constitutional Courts in bail matters under special
statutes, where “Article 21, prolonged incarceration and statutory
restrictions intersect”. In view of the said reference, we do not wish
to deliberate on this issue further, save and except that in our view
paramount consideration is nothing but interest of justice for all.
Should there be any conflict between the sovereignty of country and
personal liberty, undoubtedly, the former shall prevail, particularly,
when a war is waged against the nation, be it in the form of supply
of drugs, which vitally affects the national economy and health of
the people.
23. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated
15.10.2025 in CRM-M No. 46383 of 2025 (O&M) passed by the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh is set aside.
24. Pending applications, if there are any, stand dismissed.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
7 Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 2867/2026.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Order granting bail"Sign in to search