The Supreme Court has ruled that courts cannot grant bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotic drugs without first satisfying the stringent conditions laid down under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
Setting aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Court held that the statutory restrictions are mandatory and cannot be ignored merely because the accused has remained in custody or the trial is likely to take time.
Reiterating the legal position, the Bench observed, “Recording a finding mandated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which is sine qua non for granting bail to an accused under the NDPS Act cannot be avoided while passing orders on such applications.”
Read also: Right to Travel Abroad Cannot Override Fair and Speedy Criminal Trial: Supreme Court
It further remarked, “Should there be any conflict between the sovereignty of country and personal liberty, undoubtedly, the former shall 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 of the people.”
The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh in an appeal preferred by the State of Punjab against Balraj Singh alias Billa.
The dispute reached the Supreme Court after the Punjab and Haryana High Court ordered the release of Balraj Singh @ Billa on regular bail on October 15, 2025.
Read also: Supreme Court Quashes DV Case; Slams Abuse of Mediated Settlement and Dissolves Marriage
According to the State, the allegations involved a commercial quantity of heroin and the High Court had failed to apply the legal safeguards prescribed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act before granting bail.
The Supreme Court accepted the State’s argument and restored the respondent to custody.
According to the police, a checkpoint had been established near the Canal Road bridge at Village Veeram when officers intercepted a Mahindra XUV-300 that attempted to flee after spotting the police party.
A search, carried out after following the procedure prescribed under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, allegedly resulted in the recovery of 1.465 kilograms of heroin from two occupants of the vehicle.
The forensic examination later confirmed that the seized substance was heroin. The FIR was registered under Sections 21(c), 29, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act.
Investigators later brought Balraj Singh @ Billa into the case on the basis of disclosure statements allegedly made by the arrested co-accused.
The prosecution claimed that while lodged in Central Jail, Goindwal Sahib, he had instructed them to collect and store the contraband for further distribution.
The investigation also alleged that he was running a drug trafficking network from inside the jail with the help of illegal mobile phones.
Although his plea for regular bail had earlier been rejected by the Special Court at Tarn Taran, the High Court granted him bail after taking note of the period of custody and the possibility of delay in the conclusion of the trial.
The Supreme Court, however, found that the High Court’s approach was legally flawed. It observed that once a case involves commercial quantity, the twin conditions contained in Section 37 become the starting point for deciding a bail application.
The Bench noted that the High Court had not dealt with the mandatory requirements at all while enlarging the respondent on bail.
The Court ruled that,
“Upon consideration of the case of the respondent against the twin conditions laid down in Section 37, we are of the view that no case for bail is 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.”
The Court further held that custody of one year and seven months could not, in the facts of the present case, be treated as prolonged incarceration, particularly when the alleged offences carry a maximum sentence of twenty years’ rigorous imprisonment.
While acknowledging that constitutional courts have granted bail in certain cases on the ground of prolonged incarceration, the Supreme Court pointed out that there is still no settled benchmark for determining when incarceration becomes excessive in prosecutions under special statutes.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court quashed the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order granting bail to Balraj Singh @ Billa and reiterated that compliance with Section 37 of the NDPS Act is indispensable before an accused charged with offences involving commercial quantity can be released on bail.
Case: State of Punjab vs Balraj Singh @ Billa
Date of Order: 02.06.2026
Status: Allowed
