New Delhi: A Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih, set aside the bail orders granted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court to two accused persons charged with trafficking commercial quantities of heroin under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, holding that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be used to dilute the stringent twin conditions mandated by Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The orders were passed on 24.04.2026 in Criminal Appeal (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5020 of 2026) in State of Punjab vs. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora, and the connected Criminal Appeal (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5075 of 2026) in State of Punjab vs. Gurjit Singh @ Geetu.
On 10.01.2024, during a vehicle check at a police barricade on Canal Road near Village Veeram in District Tarn Taran, Punjab, a Mahindra XUV-300 was intercepted. The two occupants—Gurjit Singh @ Geetu, who was driving, and Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora—were apprehended. A search conducted thereafter yielded a total of 1.465 kilograms of heroin: 957 grams from Sukhwinder Singh and 508 grams from Gurjit Singh, concededly a “commercial quantity” under the NDPS Act. Consequently, an FIR was registered under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. A chargesheet was filed on 21.06.2024, and charges were framed by the Trial Court on 20.07.2024.
Both accused separately moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. In each case, the application before the High Court was the second such petition, the earlier ones having been dismissed—Sukhwinder Singh’s first application (CRM-M No. 58082 of 2025) having been dismissed as withdrawn on 27.10.2025, and Gurjit Singh’s (CRM-M No. 30865 of 2025) having been dismissed on 27.08.2025. By a common order dated 18.02.2026, the High Court allowed both petitions, reasoning that the accused had been in custody for over two years, that only two of twenty-four prosecution witnesses had been examined, that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future, and that further incarceration would violate the right under Article 21. Crucially, the High Court held that “the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted bearing in mind the right to a speedy trial.”
The State of Punjab challenged both orders before the Supreme Court. Senior Counsel for the State urged that, where the recovery is of a commercial quantity, the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act—namely, reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty, and that he is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail—are mandatory prerequisites, and their non-satisfaction vitiates any bail order. Reliance was placed on Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Kashif [(2024) 11 SCC 372], State of Meghalaya vs. Lalrintluanga Sailo and Another [(2024) 15 SCC 36], Union of India vs. Ajay Kumar Singh [2023 SCC OnLine SC 346], and Parwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab [Criminal Appeal No. 3931 of 2023], wherein the Court cautioned that, in view of the drug menace afflicting Punjab, courts must be highly circumspect in granting bail in such cases.
Senior Counsel for the respondents countered that the mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50, and 52 of the NDPS Act had been breached; that all prosecution witnesses were police personnel and no independent witness was associated; that written grounds of arrest were not supplied to the accused in compliance with Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra and Another [(2026) 1 SCC 500], as followed in Dr. Rajinder Rajan vs. Union of India [Criminal Appeal No. 1700 of 2026]; and that parity with co-accused who were already on bail warranted similar relief.
The Supreme Court allowed both appeals and set aside the impugned bail orders. The Court held that Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act casts a mandatory duty upon the court to record its satisfaction on the twin cumulative conditions before enlarging an accused on bail in commercial quantity cases, and that the non-recording of such satisfaction is not a curable irregularity but a vitiating factor. The Bench further held that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 and the mandate of Section 37 are to be read harmoniously, and that the former cannot be invoked solely on the ground of delay to override the latter.
The Court observed that the High Court’s express formulation that the rigours of Section 37 “can be diluted” on account of the right to a speedy trial was plainly contrary to settled law and warranted interference on that ground alone.
Beyond the Section 37 issue, the Court flagged two additional infirmities in the bail order concerning Sukhwinder Singh. First, the High Court had recorded that the accused was “not involved in any other case,” whereas the respondent himself had disclosed in paragraph 12 of his bail petition that one more FIR was pending against him. The Court found this irreconcilable factual finding to be a further ground vitiating the order. Second, the impugned order was entirely silent on the fact that the petition before the High Court was a successive bail application, the earlier one having been dismissed. The Court reiterated the settled principle that a court entertaining a successive bail application under a special statute is obliged to identify the change in circumstances that justifies fresh consideration.
The Court also censured the manner of disclosure made by both accused in their respective bail petitions. In each case, the earlier dismissed bail application had been disclosed by case number alone, without revealing its nature or outcome. The Court held that, in a matter where discretion is sought under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, nothing short of complete candour is expected from the applicant, and a bare reference to case numbers—calculated to obscure rather than illuminate—does not discharge that obligation in law.
Both respondents were directed to surrender before the Trial Court within one week, with liberty to apply afresh for regular bail before the competent court upon surrender.
The Court expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, leaving those issues to be considered by the appropriate court at the time of a fresh bail application.
Case Title: State of Punjab vs. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora
