Bail in Commercial Quantity NDPS Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Section 37 Twin Conditions: Supreme Court
Case Name: State of Punjab v. Balraj Singh @ Billa
Citation: 2026 INSC 618
Date of Judgment/Order: 02 June 2026
Bench: Sanjay Karol, J. and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.
Held: The Supreme Court held that in cases involving commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, grant of bail is impermissible unless the Court records satisfaction of the twin conditions under Section 37, namely that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The Court reiterated that a liberal bail approach ignoring Section 37 is legally unsustainable, and mere custody period or likelihood of delay in trial cannot substitute the mandatory statutory satisfaction required under the NDPS Act.
Summary: The case arose from FIR No. 06 dated 10.01.2024 registered under Sections 21(c), 29, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act after recovery of 1.465 kg heroin from two co-accused persons. The respondent, Balraj Singh @ Billa, was arrayed as an accused on the basis of disclosure that he had directed the co-accused to collect and keep the heroin for further supply while he was lodged in Central Jail, Goindwal Sahib, and investigation indicated that he was operating a drug trafficking network from inside jail using illegal mobile phones. The Special Court rejected his bail application, but the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail on the ground of custody period and likely delay in trial, observing that antecedents alone could not justify refusal of bail. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had not considered the mandatory twin conditions under Section 37 at all, despite the case involving commercial quantity and despite the respondent having antecedents of similar NDPS offences. The Court also noted the lack of uniformity in decisions on prolonged incarceration in special statute cases and referred to the pending reference in Tasleem Ahmed concerning the intersection of Article 21, prolonged incarceration and statutory restrictions.
Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Punjab and set aside the order dated 15.10.2025 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CRM-M No. 46383 of 2025 granting bail to the respondent. The Court held that no case for bail was made out under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, particularly because the respondent had antecedents involving similar offences and therefore it could not be said that he was unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. The Court further held that custody of 1 year and 7 months could not be treated as prolonged incarceration warranting bail when the offence carried a possible maximum sentence of twenty years. All pending applications were dismissed.