Right To Speedy Trial Cannot Dilute Mandatory Statutory Rigours U/S 37 NDPS Act: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Order

The Court noted that judicial satisfaction regarding the "twin conditions", reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit further offences, is a mandatory jurisdictional pre-condition for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities of contraband.

Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih while setting aside the bail orders granted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, observed, “…What the High Court has, instead, proceeded on is the proposition that “the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted bearing in mind the right to a speedy trial”. The right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is undoubtedly a valuable constitutional guarantee; but in the context of a special statute such as the NDPS Act dealing with commercial quantity, that right has to be read alongside, and not in displacement of, the mandate of Section 37. The omission to record the twin satisfaction prescribed by the statute, it appears, may have escaped the attention of the High Court”.

Senior Advocate Arvind Singh Sangwan appeared for the appellant and Karan Sharma, AOR appeared for the respondent.

As per the facts, the interception of a vehicle on January 10, 2024, in District Tarn Taran, led to the recovery of 1.465 kilograms of heroin from Sukhwinder Singh and Gurjit Singh. Following their arrest, charges were framed on July 20, 2024 under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

Although the High Court granted them bail on February 18, 2026 citing prolonged incarceration and a slow trial pace, with only two out of twenty-four witnesses examined, the State of Punjab challenged these orders.

The respondents had previously filed bail applications which were either withdrawn or dismissed by the High Court. However, in their successful second petitions, the respondents provided incomplete disclosures regarding these prior dismissals and their criminal antecedents. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court failed to refer to the fate of earlier petitions or record any change in circumstances that justified a fresh consideration for bail.

The Court noting the High Court’s failure to record the mandatory twin satisfaction required under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) said that the High Court’s finding that Respondent had no other cases was factually irreconcilable with his own admission of a prior FIR.

“The manner in which the respondent disclosed CRM-M No. 58082 of 2025 in paragraph 14 of his bail petition before the High Court also does not escape the attention of this Court. The disclosure stops at the case number; it neither states what the case was, nor what became of it. A disclosure so worded, in a matter where the Court is called upon to record its satisfaction on the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, falls well short of the candour that an applicant seeking the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction is bound to observe. It is a settled principle that he who invokes the discretion of the Court must approach it with clean hands and place the full picture before it. A disclosure that is calculated to obscure rather than illuminate cannot, in the eye of the law, be regarded as a disclosure at all...”, the Bench noted.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court's orders dated February 18, 2026. The respondents were directed to surrender before the Trial Court within one week. The Court reserved liberty for the respondents to apply afresh for regular bail before the competent court upon their surrender.

Cause Title: State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 411)

Appearances:

Appellant: Karan Sharma, AOR.

Respondent: Arvind Singh Sangwan, Sr. Adv., Aniruddh Singh Shera, Vanya Gupta, AOR, Monika Anand, Shantanu Singh Sangwan, Shivendra Singh, Sanjukta Das, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment