Consideration Of Twin Conditions U/S 37 NDPS Act In Cases Involving Commercial Quantity Of Narcotics Mandatory: Supreme Court

The appeal before the Apex Court was filed against the impugned judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, whereby the respondent came to be released on regular bail in connection with an FIR registered under Section 21(c),29,61 and 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh stated, “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 High Court on the twin conditions. In such a scenario, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.”

Additional Advocate General Shadan Farasat represented the Appellant while M/S Mps Legal represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The case dates back to the year 2024, when the police had set-up a check point and were conducting a check of the vehicles passing. Upon seeing the police party, a car 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 regarding the queries on the papers of the car, the police suspected the presence of intoxicant material in their possession. 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 with the statutory provisions mandated under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The FSL report confirmed that the recovered substance was diacetylmorphine/heroin.

The case against the respondent herein was that the co-accused persons had 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 Central Jail. Pursuant thereto, he came to be arrayed as an accused. It was further found during the investigation that the respondent is operating a drug trafficking network from inside jail using illegal mobile phones. The respondent preferred an application seeking regular bail, which came to be rejected. In appeal, the High Court granted regular bail to the respondent after relying upon the period of custody and the likelihood of the trial taking a considerable time to release the respondent on bail.

Reasoning

The Bench referred to the judgments in State by the Inspector of Police v. B. Ramu (2024) and Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh (2024) and reiterated that satisfaction with the conditions laid down under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is mandatory while entertaining a prayer for bail involving a commercial quantity of narcotic drugs.

On a perusal of the case of the respondent against the twin conditions laid down in Section 37, the Bench held that no case for bail was 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”, it added.

Dealing with the issue of bail matters under special statutes, where Article 21, prolonged incarceration and statutory restrictions intersect, the Bench referred to the judgment in Tasleem Ahmed v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2026) and stated that if there would be any conflict between the sovereignty of country and personal liberty, the former would 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.

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court.

Cause Title: State of Punjab v. Balraj Singh @ Billa (Neutral Citation:2026 INSC 618)

Appearance

Petitioner: Additional Advocate General Shadan Farasat, AOR Karan Sharma

Respondent: M/S Mps Legal, Advocates Prabhat Chaurasia, Jashandeep Sandhu, Jasdeep Singh Dhillon, Anirudh Jamwal, Aditya Bajaj, Kenisha Savla

Click here to read/download Judgment