Border Centric Drug Cartels Pose National Security Threat Requiring Strict Section 37 NDPS Scrutiny: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Court was hearing two petitions seeking anticipatory bail in NCB cases registered by the Narcotics Control Bureau, Amritsar, involving alleged recoveries of opium, methamphetamine and heroin, and allegations of a cross-border narcotics network.

A Bench of Justice Alok Jain observed: “This Court takes judicial notice of the alarming magnitude and pervasive spread of the drug menace, particularly in the sensitive border regions of the State. The unabated influx of heavy commercial quantities of psychotropic substances across international borders poses an existential threat to public health, national security, and the socio-economic fabric of society, destroying entire generations of youth. Clandestine narco-syndicates operating in these vulnerable border belts exploit geographical proximity to run deeply entrenched supply chains and launder illicit proceeds.”

The Bench further held: “When dealing with cases emanating from such border-centric drug cartels—especially those involving commercial quantities of contraband and organized networks—the Courts are duty-bound to exercise heightened circumspection and strict scrutiny. In such matters, individual liberty must be carefully balanced against the overriding societal interest, ensuring that the stringent statutory mandate and legislative intent behind Section 37 of the NDPS Act are strictly upheld to prevent the frustration of ongoing investigations.”

Senior Advocate P.S. Ahluwalia appeared for the petitioner. Special Public Prosecutor Rajiv Sharma appeared for the NCB.

Background

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in two NCB cases. In the first case, the NCB alleged recovery of 2.950 kg of opium, 5.504 kg of methamphetamine and 8.740 kg of heroin from a co-accused. In the second case, the alleged recovery was 9.332 kg of heroin.

The petitioner argued that he had been implicated only based on disclosure statements, that there was no independent recovery from him, and that the investigative agency had acted with premeditated targeting and high-handedness. It was also argued that he was ready to join the investigation and that no useful purpose would be served by custodial interrogation.

The NCB opposed anticipatory bail, contending that the petitioner was a key conspirator in an organised international illicit drug trafficking network and that his implication was not based merely on custodial disclosure statements, but also on digital evidence, call detail records and alleged financial links.

Court’s Observations

The Court noted the NCB’s submission that the contraband allegedly recovered in both cases was of commercial quantity, thereby attracting the statutory rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The Court recorded: “Coming to the merits of the case, learned counsel for the NCB has clarified that the seizures effected in NCB Crime No. 08 include 2.950 kg of Opium, 5.504 kg of Methamphetamine, and 8.740 kg of Heroin—all falling within the statutory threshold of commercial quantity. Consequently, the strict bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 squarely applies, dis-entitling the petitioner to seek the concession of pre-arrest bail.”

The Court also noted the prosecution case that the disclosures did not stand alone and were allegedly supported by digital material.

It observed: “Moreso, the petitioner’s implication is not solely based on custodial disclosure statements. It is contended that these disclosures do not stand in isolation, as cogent digital evidence recovered from Nishan Singh's mobile phone and nexus between the petitioner and the co-accused around the relevant period, including the secret meeting dated 06.03.2026 held at the residence of Paramjit Singh @ Pamma, corroborates the pivotal role played by the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence.”

The Court rejected the argument that alleged inconsistencies and procedural issues in the investigation were sufficient to grant anticipatory bail at this stage. It said minor lapses could not outweigh the need for a thorough investigation into the drug menace, while also clarifying that authorities were not given a free hand to violate law.

The Court stated: “It cannot be lost sight of the fact that while dealing with the investigation of such kind and the intelligent and disciplined criminals who execute such offences, it is likely to have some minor discrepancies. The Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the drug menace in the State of Punjab is at its peak and the larger aspect has to be seen for which thorough investigation is required. NCB is a specialized Authority to look into such crimes, however, certain minor lapses cannot form basis to make the petitioner entitled for grant the extra-ordinary concession of anticipatory bail.”

The Bench added: “It is duly recorded here that the above observation does not give a clean chit to the Authorities to violate the provisions of law with any impunity. The Authorities, if find, that the Officer has not acted in accordance with law will be at liberty to take appropriate steps against him. However, at this stage; the said issue is left open.”

The Court held that custodial interrogation was necessary in light of the alleged role attributed to the petitioner, the volume of drugs recovered, alleged antecedents, and the need to trace the financial trail and wider conspiracy.

The Court observed: “Considering all the above submissions and documents placed on record, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is of utmost importance especially in light of the facts that there is huge cache of drugs being recovered which is linked to the petitioner and other co-accused and there is specific allegation that the petitioner had facilitated the lifting of the entire illegal cross-border drugs consignment; his previous criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act; close acquaintance of the petitioner with the other co-accused and further to unearth the entire financial trail, conspiracy and the nexus of all nominated accused with the cross border smuggling of drugs.”

It further held: “In a crime such as being investigated by the NCB and the prima facie role being attributed to the petitioner makes it incumbent that his custodial interrogation will be of extreme importance.”

The Court distinguished the cases cited by the petitioner, noting that they involved regular bail, lesser quantities, absence of antecedents, or lack of investigative steps, unlike the present case where the allegations pointed towards an organized cross-border drug syndicate.

The Court stated: “The reliance placed by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner on Ravinder Singh @ Ravi (supra) is wholly misplaced. The said precedent pertained to concession of regular bail involving a quantity barely exceeding the commercial threshold. In contrast, the present case seeking concession of anticipatory bail and a massive recovery of diverse narcotics— 2.950 kg of Opium, 5.504 kg of Methamphetamine, and 8.740 kg of Heroin in NCB No. 08 dated 15.02.2026 and 9.332 kgs of heroin in NCB No. 14 dated 11.03.2026, is pointing toward an organized cross-border drug syndicate.”

The Court further observed: “In contrast, the present case is supported by call detail records and other digital evidence, which prima facie connect the petitioner with the disclosure statement. Accordingly, the aforesaid precedents are clearly distinguishable and are of no assistance to the petitioner. The considerations for pre-arrest bail, where custodial interrogation is crucial to unraveling a complex narco-network and financial trail, stand on a completely different footing.”

Conclusion

Holding that anticipatory bail could not be granted in the facts of the case, the High Court dismissed both petitions.

The Court also made clear that its observations were only for deciding the anticipatory bail petitions and would not be treated as an expression on the merits of the case.

Cause Title: Harmanjit Singh Sandhu alias Hamma v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2026:PHHC:103296)

Appearances

Petitioner: Senior Advocate P.S. Ahluwalia with Advocates Deepanshu and Isha Mehta

Respondent: Special Public Prosecutor Rajiv Sharma with Advocates Vinayak Atre and Indu Bala Sharma for NCB

Click here to read/download Judgment