Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Regular Bail in NDPS Case Involving Commercial Quantity and Alleged Drug Proceeds; Holds Section 37 Bar Attracted
Case Name: Milap Singh v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 19 January 2026
Citation: CRM-M-64507-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that where the prosecution alleges the accused to be an active participant in an organised drug trafficking syndicate and the case involves recovery of commercial quantity of contraband along with substantial alleged drug proceeds, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted. The Court held that mere absence of physical recovery of contraband from the accused does not, by itself, dilute the embargo on grant of bail when prima facie material indicates financing and facilitation of illicit drug trafficking.
Summary: The petition was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in FIR No.0031 dated 26.05.2025 registered under Sections 21, 25, 27-A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station State Special Operations Cell, District Intelligence Wing (CID), Amritsar.
As per the prosecution case, on the basis of secret information, a police party apprehended co-accused Ajay Pal Singh and Hardeep Singh from a motorcycle and recovered 2 kg 500 grams of heroin from their conscious possession, which constituted a commercial quantity. During the same operation, the petitioner was intercepted while driving a Fortuner vehicle, from whose possession an amount of ₹42,00,000/- along with an electronic currency counting machine was recovered. The recovered cash was suspected to be drug money. The petitioner was arrested on the same day and remained in custody.
The petitioner contended that no contraband was recovered from him and that the cash belonged to his agriculturist father, supported by documentary material such as J-Forms, bank statements, jamabandi and loan documents. It was argued that Section 27-A of the NDPS Act was wrongly invoked only to attract the rigours of Section 37, that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with, and that prolonged incarceration was unjustified as the trial was unlikely to conclude early.
The State opposed the bail plea, contending that the petitioner was an active member of an organised drug trafficking syndicate and was entrusted with the role of collecting and channelising drug proceeds through hawala. It was argued that recovery of a huge amount of cash along with a currency counting machine clearly established the petitioner’s involvement in financing illicit traffic and that the sequence of events demonstrated conscious involvement rather than false implication.
After considering the rival submissions, the Court held that at the stage of bail, a detailed examination of defence evidence regarding the source of money was impermissible. The Court observed that the alleged recovery of drug proceeds, read with the recovery of commercial quantity of heroin from co-accused and the invocation of Sections 27-A and 29 of the NDPS Act, prima facie attracted the statutory bar under Section 37. The Court found no grounds to conclude that the petitioner was not guilty of the alleged offences or that he was unlikely to commit such offences if released on bail.
Decision: The bail petition was dismissed.