Full Judgment Text
2026 INSC 411
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO.5020 OF 2026)
STATE OF PUNJAB … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SUKHWINDER SINGH @ GORA … RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal is directed against the
judgment and order dated 18.02.2026 passed
by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in
CRM-M No. 70945 of 2025, whereby the petition
preferred by the respondent under Section 483
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 (hereinafter, “the BNSS”) seeking regular
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NAVEEN D
Date: 2026.04.24
16:09:34 IST
Reason:
bail in connection with FIR No. 06 of 2024 dated
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.5020/2026 Page 1 of 12
10.01.2024 registered at Police Station Khalra,
District Tarn Taran, for offences punishable
under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
(hereinafter, “the NDPS Act”), came to be
allowed.
3. The facts, briefly stated, are that on 10.01.2024,
during a vehicle check at a police barricade on
the Canal Road near Village Veeram in District
Tarn Taran, a Mahindra XUV-300 car bearing
registration No. UP-15-DD-6521 was
intercepted. The two occupants, the co-accused
Gurjit Singh @ Geetu (driver) and the
respondent herein, were apprehended. Upon
search conducted, total three packets of heroin
were recovered, two weighing 957 grams from
the respondent and one weighing 508 grams
from the co-accused, aggregating to 1.465
kilograms, admittedly a “commercial quantity”
under the NDPS Act. The chargesheet came to
be filed on 21.06.2024 and charges were framed
by the Trial Court on 20.07.2024 under
Sections 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act.
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.5020/2026 Page 2 of 12
4. The respondent’s first regular bail application
under Section 483 of the BNSS preferred before
the High Court, being CRM-M No. 58082 of
2025, came to be dismissed as withdrawn on
27.10.2025. The respondent thereafter filed the
second petition under Section 483 of the BNSS,
being CRM-M No. 70945 of 2025, which has
been allowed by the impugned order.
5. By the impugned order, the High Court enlarged
the respondent on regular bail recording, in
paragraph 8 thereof, that the respondent had
remained in custody for 2 years, 1 month and 2
days; that he was “not involved in any other
case”; that charges had been framed on
20.07.2024 but only 2 prosecution witnesses
out of 24 had been examined; that the trial was
likely to take considerable time; that further
incarceration would be violative of his right
under Article 21 of the Constitution; and that,
in the words of the High Court, “the rigors of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted
bearing in mind the right to a speedy trial”.
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.5020/2026 Page 3 of 12
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner-State
assailed the impugned order on the ground that
the recovery being admittedly of commercial
quantity, the rigors of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the
NDPS Act stood squarely attracted, and that the
High Court was bound to record satisfaction on
the cumulative twin conditions under that
section. The recording of such satisfaction, it
was submitted, is the sine qua non f or the grant
of bail in offences involving commercial
quantity, and the impugned order is devoid of
any such finding. Reliance was placed on
1
Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif , State of
2
Meghalaya v. Lalrintluanga Sailo and Another ,
3
and Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh .
Reliance was further placed on the observations
of this Court in Parwinder Singh v. State of
4
Punjab , that, having regard to the drug menace
in the State of Punjab, the Courts ought to be
highly circumspect while granting bail in such
cases.
1
(2024) 11 SCC 372
2
(2024) 15 SCC 36
3
2023 SCC OnLine SC 346
4
Criminal Appeal No.3931 of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 12601 of 2023
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.5020/2026 Page 4 of 12
7. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the
respondent supported the impugned order. It
was submitted that the respondent remained in
custody since 10.01.2024; that out of 24
prosecution witnesses cited, only 2 stand
examined despite charges having been framed
on 20.07.2024 and the trial is likely to take
considerable time. The High Court has rightly
held that the right to speedy trial under Article
21 cannot be defeated by mechanical
application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It was
further submitted that the mandatory
provisions of Sections 42, 50 and 52 of the
NDPS Act stand violated; that no independent
witness was joined despite ample opportunity;
that all prosecution witnesses are police
personnel; that the respondent has but a single
criminal antecedent of the year 2020 under the
Arms Act, and none under the NDPS Act; that
the grounds of arrest in writing were not
supplied to the respondent in compliance with
Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and
5
Another as followed in Dr. Rajinder Rajan v.
5
(2026) 1 SCC 500
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.5020/2026 Page 5 of 12
6
Union of India and that the State has placed
nothing on record to suggest misuse of bail or
violation of any condition imposed by the
impugned order. Parity with the co-accused,
similarly enlarged on bail, was also pressed.
8. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for
the parties at length and perused the record.
9. It is well-settled that in matters involving
recovery of contraband in commercial quantity,
the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of
the NDPS Act are mandatory and entail no
relaxation merely on the ground that the
accused has undergone prolonged incarceration
during the pendency of trial. The provision casts
upon the Court a duty to record, before
enlarging an accused on bail, its satisfaction on
two cumulative conditions, first, that there exist
reasonable grounds for believing that the
accused is not guilty of the offence charged; and
second, that he is not likely to commit any
offence while on bail. The recording of such
6
Criminal Appeal No.1700 of 2026 @ SLP (Crl.) No.3326 of 2026 dated 01.04.2026
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.5020/2026 Page 6 of 12
satisfaction is not a mere formality but a
mandatory pre-condition, the non-observance
of which vitiates the grant of bail. This Court, in
Kashif (supra), has held in no uncertain terms
that the recording of satisfaction on the twin
conditions under Section 37 is mandatory and
not merely directory, and that an order granting
bail without such recorded satisfaction stands
vitiated and cannot be sustained. The same view
stands reiterated in Lalrintluanga Sailo (supra) .
10. The impugned order, on its own showing, does
not record the satisfaction mandated under
Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. Far from
recording such satisfaction, the High Court has
gone on to observe that 'the rigours of Section
37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted bearing in
mind the right to a speedy trial.' Such an
approach is plainly contrary to the settled law
laid down by this Court and deserves to be set
aside on this ground alone. The right to speedy
trial, rooted in Article 21 of the Constitution, is
undoubtedly a precious Constitutional right.
That said, in matters governed by a special
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.5020/2026 Page 7 of 12
enactment such as the NDPS Act, particularly
where the recovery is of commercial quantity,
the said right under Article 21 must be
exercised within the framework of Section 37
and cannot be pressed into service solely on the
ground of delay to override it. The constitutional
right under Article 21 and the special provision
of law under Section 37, NDPS Act are to be read
harmoniously and not placed in opposition to
each other. The High Court, by failing to record
its satisfaction on the twin conditions under
Section 37, has in this Court’s view, committed
an error.
11. On a perusal of the record, this Court is further
constrained to observe that the impugned order
reflects a lack of adequate consideration of the
record. In paragraph 12 of the bail petition
preferred before the High Court, the respondent
himself admitted that 'apart from the present
case one more case FIR is there against him'.
The High Court, however, in paragraph 8 of the
impugned order, has recorded that the
respondent is 'not involved in any other case',
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.5020/2026 Page 8 of 12
and has expressly counted that recording
among the considerations weighing in favour of
the grant of bail. The recording of the High Court
and the admission by the respondent are
irreconcilable. A Court while considering the
prayer for bail under a special statute and
attracting Section 37 of the NDPS Act could not
have granted relief on grounds directly at odds
with the admissions made by the respondent in
the very petition before it. The said order being
contrary to facts is flawed that speaks for itself
as it appears that this fact was not brought to
the notice of the High Court.
12. Equally, the impugned order is conspicuously
silent on the fact that the petition before the
High Court was the second petition under
Section 483 of the BNSS, the first being CRM-M
No. 58082 of 2025, having been dismissed as
withdrawn on 27.10.2025. A Court entertaining
a successive bail petition under a special statute
is bound to refer to the fate of the earlier petition
and to record what change in circumstances
justifies a fresh consideration. The impugned
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.5020/2026 Page 9 of 12
order is silent on this aspect, which ought to
have found express mention therein. Especially
when the time gap between the earlier dismissal
of the application for bail and the one in
question before this Court now is quite less.
13. The manner in which the respondent disclosed
CRM-M No. 58082 of 2025 in paragraph 14 of
his bail petition before the High Court also does
not escape the attention of this Court. The
disclosure stops at the case number; it neither
states what the case was, nor what became of it.
A disclosure so worded, in a matter where the
Court is called upon to record its satisfaction on
the twin conditions under Section 37 of the
NDPS Act, falls well short of the candour that an
applicant seeking the exercise of discretionary
jurisdiction is bound to observe. It is a settled
principle that he who invokes the discretion of
the Court must approach it with clean hands
and place the full picture before it. A disclosure
that is calculated to obscure rather than
illuminate cannot, in the eye of the law, be
regarded as a disclosure at all. The possibility of
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.5020/2026 Page 10 of 12
the factum of dismissal of the earlier bail
application and that too on 27.10.2025 having
escaped the notice of the Court cannot be ruled
out.
14. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the
view that the impugned order does not stand to
scrutiny and is liable to be set aside. The
submissions advanced on behalf of the
respondent, going to the merits of the
prosecution case are all matters which would
fall for consideration of the appropriate Court as
and when the application for bail is filed and
grounds taken up therein. This Court refrains
from expressing any opinion thereon as these
were neither taken into consideration nor
pressed as is apparent from the impugned
order.
15. In the light of the foregoing, the appeal is
allowed. The impugned judgment and order
dated 18.02.2026 passed by the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M
No. 70945 of 2025 is set aside.
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.5020/2026 Page 11 of 12
16. The respondent is directed to surrender before
the Trial Court within one week from the date of
this order. It will be open to the respondent to
apply afresh for regular bail before the
competent Court on surrender.
17. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
.……..………..……………………..J.
[ SANJAY KAROL ]
.……..………..……………………..J.
[ AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 24, 2026.
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.5020/2026 Page 12 of 12
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO. 5075 OF 2026)
STATE OF PUNJAB … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
GURJIT SINGH @ GEETU … RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal calls in question the
judgment and order dated 18.02.2026 passed
by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh in CRM-M No. 72303 of 2025, by
which the petition preferred by the respondent
under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter, “the
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.5075/2026 Page 1 of 11
BNSS”), seeking regular bail in connection with
FIR No. 06 of 2024 dated 10.01.2024 registered
at Police Station Khalra, District Tarn Taran, for
offences punishable under Sections 21(c) and
29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter, “the NDPS
Act”), came to be allowed.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on
10.01.2024, in the course of a naka operation
near Village Veeram in District Tarn Taran, a
Mahindra XUV-300 bearing registration No. UP-
15-DD-6521 was stopped and searched. The
respondent, who was driving the vehicle, and
the co-accused Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora, were
apprehended on the spot. Upon the search
conducted, heroin was recovered from the
possession of both the accused, 508 grams from
the respondent and 957 grams from the co-
accused Sukhwinder Singh, the aggregate being
1.465 kilograms, which is admittedly a
“commercial quantity” for the purposes of the
NDPS Act. The chargesheet was filed on
21.06.2024 and, on 20.07.2024, charges came
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.5075/2026 Page 2 of 11
to be framed by the learned Trial Court under
Sections 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act.
4. The respondent’s first regular bail application
under Section 483 of the BNSS preferred before
the High Court, bearing CRM-M No. 30865 of
2025, came to be dismissed on 27.08.2025. The
respondent thereafter filed the second petition
under Section 483 of the BNSS, being CRM-M
No. 72303 of 2025, which has been allowed by
the impugned order.
5. By the impugned order, the High Court allowed
the bail application of the respondent by
recording in paragraph 8 thereof that the
respondent had been in custody for 2 years, 1
month and 2 days; that he was on bail in other
case ; that the co-accused stood enlarged on
bail; that charges had been framed on
20.07.2024 but only 2 prosecution witnesses
out of 24 had been examined and that the trial
was likely to take considerable time and further
incarceration would be violative of his right
under Article 21 of the Constitution and “the
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.5075/2026 Page 3 of 11
rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be
diluted bearing in mind the right to a speedy
trial”. On the strength of these considerations,
the High Court proceeded to enlarge the
respondent on regular bail.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner-State
urged that the recovery being of commercial
quantity, the bar under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the
NDPS Act operated in full rigour, and that the
High Court was required to record its
satisfaction on the twin cumulative conditions
laid down in the provision. It was submitted that
the recording of such satisfaction is a
jurisdictional pre-condition and not a mere
formality, and that the failure to do so renders
the impugned order liable to interference by this
Court. Reliance was placed on Narcotics Control
1
Bureau v. Kashif , State of Meghalaya v.
2
Lalrintluanga Sailo and Another and Union of
3
India v. Ajay Kumar Singh . Further reliance
was placed on the observations of this Court in
1
(2024) 11 SCC 372
2
(2024) 15 SCC 36
3
2023 SCC OnLine SC 346
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.5075/2026 Page 4 of 11
4
Parwinder Singh v. State of Punjab , that, regard
being had to the drug menace afflicting the State
of Punjab, the Courts ought to be highly
circumspect while granting bail, particularly
where the applicant bears an antecedent.
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, on
the other hand, submitted in support of the
impugned order that the respondent has been
in custody since 10.01.2024; that although
charges came to be framed on 20.07.2024, only
2 out of 24 prosecution witnesses have been
examined till date and the trial is unlikely to
conclude in the near future. The right to speedy
trial guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Constitution cannot be subordinated to a
mechanical application of Section 37 of the
NDPS Act. It was further submitted that the
mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50 and 52
of the NDPS Act have been breached; that no
independent witness was associated despite the
opportunity to do so; that all witnesses cited are
police personnel and that the respondent has no
4
Criminal Appeal No.3931 of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 12601 of 2023
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.5075/2026 Page 5 of 11
antecedent under the NDPS Act, the sole
antecedent being one under the Arms Act of the
year 2020. The grounds of arrest in writing were
also not furnished to the respondent, contrary
to the mandate of Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of
5
Maharashtra and Another , as followed in Dr.
6
Rajinder Rajan v. Union of India , and that the
State has not placed anything on record to show
that the respondent has misused the liberty
granted to him or has violated any condition of
bail. Parity with the co-accused, already on bail,
was also relied upon.
8. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for
the parties at length and perused the record.
9. The position of law on the grant of bail in
matters involving recovery of commercial
quantity of contraband under the NDPS Act is
well settled. Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act
is cast in mandatory terms. Where the Public
Prosecutor opposes the application for bail, the
Court can enlarge an accused on bail only upon
5
(2026) 1 SCC 500
6
Criminal Appeal No.1700 of 2026 @ SLP (Crl.) No.3326 of 2026 dated 01.04.2026
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.5075/2026 Page 6 of 11
recording its satisfaction on two cumulative
conditions: first, that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that the accused is not
guilty of the offence; and second, that the
accused is not likely to commit any offence while
on bail. The recording of such satisfaction is not
a mere formality but a jurisdictional
requirement. This Court in Kashif (supra) has
held, in plain terms, that the non-recording of
the twin satisfaction, being mandatory in
nature, renders an order granting bail
unsustainable. A similar view has been
expressed in Lalrintluanga Sailo (supra) and
Ajay Kumar Singh (supra) .
10. When the impugned order is tested against that
settled position, it becomes apparent that
paragraph 8 of the impugned order, which
carries the weight of the reasoning, does not
contain a finding on either of the twin conditions
prescribed by Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS
Act. What the High Court has, instead,
proceeded on is the proposition that “the rigors
of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.5075/2026 Page 7 of 11
bearing in mind the right to a speedy trial”. The
right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the
Constitution is undoubtedly a valuable
constitutional guarantee; but in the context of a
special statute such as the NDPS Act dealing
with commercial quantity, that right has to be
read alongside, and not in displacement of, the
mandate of Section 37. The omission to record
the twin satisfaction prescribed by the statute,
it appears, may have escaped the attention of
the High Court.
11. Upon a perusal of the record, another fact
appears to have gone unnoticed before the High
Court. In paragraph 14 of the bail petition, the
respondent represented that no similar petition
for the grant of regular bail had been filed by
him, and that no bail application was pending
before the learned Trial Court, “except CRM-M
5003 of 2025 and CRM-M 30865 of 2025”. The
disclosure so made rests at the case numbers
alone; it does not indicate the nature of either
the matter, nor the outcome thereof. Had the
particulars been placed before the High Court,
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.5075/2026 Page 8 of 11
it would have emerged that the respondent’s
own earlier petition for regular bail had been
dismissed by a coordinate Bench of the High
Court on 27.08.2025. The disclosure in
paragraph 14 of the bail application, as made,
does not reveal this. In a matter where Section
37 of the NDPS Act is attracted and the Court's
discretion is sought to be exercised, nothing
short of complete candour is expected, and the
bare reference to case numbers does not
discharge that obligation.
12. This Court would add one further observation.
In Parwinder Singh ( supra ) , this Court sounded
a note of caution that, having regard to the drug
menace that grips the State of Punjab, Courts
ought to be highly circumspect while granting
bail, more so to a repeat offender. The caution
so sounded, does not appear to have been
adverted to in the impugned order, even though
the respondent, charged with the recovery of a
commercial quantity of heroin, himself stood
enlarged on bail in another case.
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.5075/2026 Page 9 of 11
13. For the reasons set out above, this Court is of
the considered view that the impugned order
cannot be allowed to sustain. The mandatory
requirement of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS
Act having not been met, the antecedent of the
respondent, though noticed, not having been
tested against that requirement, and the
disclosure made in the bail petition having left
material particulars out of view, the grant of
regular bail, warrants interference. The other
contentions advanced on behalf of the
respondent touching upon the merits of the
prosecution case would appropriately fall for
consideration before the competent Court when
the question of bail is taken up afresh. This
Court, accordingly, refrains from expressing any
opinion thereon.
14. In the light of the foregoing, the appeal is
allowed. The impugned judgment and order
dated 18.02.2026 passed by the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M
No. 72303 of 2025 is set aside.
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.5075/2026 Page 10 of 11
15. The respondent shall surrender before the
competent Trial Court within one week from the
date of this order. Liberty is reserved to the
respondent to apply afresh for regular bail
before the competent Court on surrender.
16. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
.……..………..……………………..J.
[ SANJAY KAROL ]
.……..………..……………………..J.
[ AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 24, 2026.
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.5075/2026 Page 11 of 11