State Of Punjab vs Balraj Singh @ Billa

2026 INSC 618
REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2026
(@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 896 of 2026)


STATE OF PUNJAB … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

BALRAJ SINGH @ BILLA … RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

SANJAY KAROL, J.


Leave granted.
2. The present appeal has been filed against impugned judgment
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SOURAV PAL
Date: 2026.06.02
17:28:23 IST
Reason:
and order dated 15.10.2025 in CRM-M No. 46383 of 2025 (O&M)
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) 896/2026 Page 1 of 13

passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh,
whereby the respondent herein came to be released on regular bail
in connection with FIR No. 06 dated 10.01.2024 registered under
Section 21(c)/29/61 and 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
1
Substances Act, 1985 .

Brief Facts

3. The case set up in the subject FIR against the accused persons
is that on 10.01.2024, the police had set-up a check point at the
bridge on Canal Road, Village Veeram, and were conducting a
check of the vehicles passing. Upon seeing the police party, a car
(Mahindra XUV 300) bearing registration No. UP-15-DD-6521
attempted to flee, however the car got switched off and stopped on
the katcha side of the road. Upon enquiry, the driver of the vehicle
identified himself as Gurjit Singh @ Geetu and the other occupant
stated his name as Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora. Since no satisfactory
response was received qua the papers of the the car, the police
suspected presence of intoxicant material in their possession.

4. Consequently, notice was issued to them under Section 50 of
the NDPS Act and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, arrived at

1
Hereinafter ‘NDPS Act’.
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) 896/2026 Page 2 of 13

the stop to conduct search. He prepared consent memos for the
search and signature of both these persons was taken. Upon search,
a total of 1. 465 Kg., of heroin was recovered from their possession.
The said contraband was weighed, sealed and seized vide recovery
memos. This was after compliance of the statutory provisions
mandated under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The FSL report
confirmed that the recovered substance is diacetylmorphine/heroin.


5. The case against the respondent herein, Balraj Singh @ Billa,
is that the co-accused persons have made a disclosure on 11.01.2024
that the respondent had directed them to collect the heroin from the
canal area and keep it for further supply on his instructions, while
lodged in Central Jail, Goindwal Sahib. Pursuant thereto, he came
to be arrayed as an accused vide DDR dated 11.01.2024. It was
further found during investigation that the respondent is operating a
drug trafficking network from inside jail using illegal mobile
phones.

6. The respondent preferred an application seeking regular bail
before Ld. Judge Special Court Tarn Taran, which came to be
numbered as B.A. 1868/2025. The same came to be rejected vide
order dated 03.07.2025. An appeal was preferred by the respondent
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) 896/2026 Page 3 of 13

before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh which
came to be numbered as CRM-M-46383-2025 (O&M).

7. The High Court vide the impugned order dated 15.10.2025
granted regular bail to the respondent. On the aspect of criminal
antecedents, the Court observed that antecedents alone cannot be the
basis for refusal of prayer of bail. The Court relied upon the period
of custody and the likelihood of the trial taking a considerable time
to release the respondent on bail.

8. It is a matter of record that in relation to the very same FIR,
all three accused persons had preferred applications for bail under
Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. These
applications were allowed and all three accused persons were
granted bail vide separate orders. Here we may observe that in
relation to the other two accused persons, this Court vide orders
dated 24.04.2026 in Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 5075 of 2026 and
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No. 5020 of 2026 has already set aside the
order granting bail by the High Court, hence we need not elaborately
deal with the legal issues therein.

9. In the instant case after hearing the learned counsel for the
parties this Court vide the interim order dated 07.04.2026 had
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) 896/2026 Page 4 of 13

directed the instant respondent Balraj Singh @ Billa to surrender. It
is a matter of record that the present respondent has thus
surrendered, as is evident from the affidavit of Mr. Surendra Lamba,
dated 09.04.2026.

Submissions
10. The appellant, State of Punjab, has submitted that vide the
impugned order the respondent has been erroneously granted bail.
We have heard Mr. Shadan Farasat, learned senior counsel and Mr.
Rajat Bhardwaj, learned Additional Advocate General. The
substantial grounds of challenge are as follows:
(a) The bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act has been
ignored by the High Court, in violation of the ratio laid down
2
in State of Meghalaya v. Lalrintluanga Sailo & Anr . and
3
Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh ;
(b) The present case involves commercial quantity,
therefore, the respondent ought not to have been released on
bail; and
(c) Respondent has 3 antecedents of similar nature, which
has been ignored by the High Court.

2
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1751.
3
2023 SCC OnLine SC 346.
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) 896/2026 Page 5 of 13

11. The respondent has submitted that the High Court has rightly
released him on regular bail. He has no connection with the subject
FIR and has been falsely implicated in the matter. Pertinently, no
reference has been made to him in the FIR and no recovery was
effected from him. The respondent has been incarcerated for 1 year
7 months and investigation stood completed. Only 2 out of 24
prosecution witnesses were examined, therefore the trial is not likely
to conclude soon.

Our View
12. At the outset, it has been reiterated by this Court that on many
occasions, an appeal against grant of bail and an application for
cancellation of bail stand on a different footing [See: Ashok
4
Dhankad v. State NCT of Delhi ]. Coming to the case at hand, in
our view, the issue which arises for our consideration is whether the
order granting bail of the High Court is in consonance with the
settled principles of law concerning Section 37 of the NDPS Act?

13. For ready reference, Section 37 of the NDPS Act reads as
follows:
“37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable. –

4
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1690.
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) 896/2026 Page 6 of 13

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), —
( a ) every offence punishable under this Act shall be
cognizable;
( b ) no person accused of an offence punishable for [offences
under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27-A and also for
offences involving commercial quantity] shall be released
on bail or on his own bond unless—
( i ) the Public Prosecutor has been given an
opportunity to oppose the application for such
release, and
( ii ) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the
application, the court is satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty
of such offence and that he is not likely to commit
any offence while on bail.
(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause ( b ) of
sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code
4
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) , or any other law for
the time being in force on granting of bail.]”

(emphasis supplied)

14. As rightly submitted by the appellant State, this Court, in
Lalrintluanga Sailo (Supra) while setting aside the bail granted by
the High Court therein had held that consideration on the twin
conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is essential by the
concerned Court. It was observed:
“5. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that
in cases involving commercial quantity of narcotic drugs or
psychotropic substances, while considering the application of
bail, the court is bound to ensure the satisfaction of conditions
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) 896/2026 Page 7 of 13

under Section 37(1)( b )( ii ) of the NDPS Act. The said provision
reads thus:

“ 37. (1)( b )( ii ) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the
application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence
and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on
bail.”

… … …

7. In the decision in Collector of Customs v. Ahmadalieva
Nodira [ Collector of Customs v. Ahmadalieva Nodira , (2004)
3 SCC 549 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 834] , the three-Judge Bench of
this Court considered the provisions under Section 37(1)( b ) as
also Section 37(1)( b )( ii ) of the NDPS Act, with regard to the
expression “reasonable grounds” used therein. This Court held
that it means something more than the prima facie grounds and
that it contemplates substantial and probable causes for
believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence.
Furthermore, it was held that the reasonable belief
contemplated in the provision would require existence of such
facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to
justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged
offence.

… … …

10. Thus, the provisions under Section 37(1)( b )( ii ) of the
NDPS Act and the decisions referred supra revealing the
consistent view of this Court that while considering the
application for bail made by an accused involved in an offence
under the NDPS Act a liberal approach ignoring the mandate
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is impermissible. 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.”
(emphasis supplied)

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) 896/2026 Page 8 of 13

15. To the similar effect, this Court in State by the Inspector of
5
Police v. B. Ramu reiterated that satisfaction with the conditions
laid down under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is mandatory while
entertaining a prayer for bail involving commercial quantity of
narcotic drugs. [See also: Ajay Kumar Singh alias Pappu (Supra) ]


16. In similar circumstances, this Court in Union of India v.
6
Namdeo Ashruba Nakade observed that the mandatory nature of
Section 37 cannot be dispensed with:

“12. Prima facie this Court is of the opinion that the
Respondent-accused is involved in drug trafficking in an
organized manner. Consequently, no case for dispensing with
mandatory requirement of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is made
out in the present matter.

13. Moreover, this Court is of the view that as the accused has
been charged with offences punishable with ten to twenty years
rigorous imprisonment, it cannot be said that the Respondent has
been incarcerated for an unreasonably long time.”

(emphasis supplied)

17. Keeping in view the above expositions of law, we now
proceed to examine the impugned order. The abovementioned
decisions of this Court display the consistent view that when it

5
2024 SCC OnLine SC 4073.
6
2025 SCC OnLine SC 3049.
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) 896/2026 Page 9 of 13

comes to cases involving commercial quantity of narcotics, the
mandatory requirements of Section 37 ought to be considered. It is
not in dispute that the case at hand, involves commercial quantity.
In such a scenario, consideration and reference to the twin
conditions enumerated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act was
mandatory. Upon a bare perusal of the impugned order, it is evident
that there has been no consideration at all by the High Court on the
twin conditions. In such a scenario, the impugned order cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law.

18. 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.


19. Moreover, the respondent has only undergone 1 year 7
months, and if found guilty a maximum sentence of twenty years
may be imposed upon him. Therefore, it cannot be said that he has
suffered incarceration for a long period, warranting interference in
view of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) 896/2026 Page 10 of 13

20. While this Court has recognized on several occasions that
prolonged incarceration warrants the grant of bail in view of Article
21 of the Constitution, we have noticed that the application thereof
is not uniform. Moreover, there is no doubt that what constitutes
“prolonged incarceration” for the purposes of bail, has not been
expounded by this Court or the law of the land.

21. While judicial discretion is an important facet of justice
dispensation, this Court cannot overlook the fact that similarly
situated persons in custody may receive different outcomes,
dependent on the approach adopted by the respective bench. At this
stage, we deem it appropriate to refer to a chart of decisions by
coordinate benches of this Court, including a chart submitted by Mr.
Mr. Shadan Farasat, learned senior counsel on this aspect:

Case Name Period of
Outcome Bench Statute
Incarceration
involved
Harpreet Singh
Talwar @ Kabir
Talwar v. State of
Gujarat [2025 INSC
662]
2 years 9
Bail not
2JB NDPS &
months
granted
UAPA
Union of India v.
Vigin K. Varghese
[2025 SCC OnLine
SC 2440]
More than 3
Order granting
2JB NDPS
years
bail set aside
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) 896/2026 Page 11 of 13

Union of India v.
Namdeo Ashruba
Nakade [2025 SCC
OnLine SC 3049]
More than 2
Order granting
2JB NDPS
years
bail set aside
Rabi Prakash v. State
of Odisha [2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1109]
3 years 6
Bail granted 2JB NDPS
months
Ankur Chaudhary v.
State of M.P. [2024
SCC OnLine SC
2730]
More than 2
Bail granted 2JB NDPS
years
Narcotic Control
Bureau v. Lakhwinder
Singh [2025 SCC
OnLine SC 366]
4 years 6
Bail granted 2JB NDPS
months
Badsha Sk. v. State of
W.B. [2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1867]
2 years 4
Bail granted 2JB NDPS
months

22. However, we note that recently this Court in Tasleem Ahmed
7
v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi has referred the question concerning
the approach of constitutional Courts in bail matters under special
statutes, where “ Article 21, prolonged incarceration and statutory
restrictions intersect ”. In view of the said reference, we do not wish
to deliberate on this issue further, save and except that in our view
paramount consideration is nothing but interest of justice for all.
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

7
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 2867/2026.
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) 896/2026 Page 12 of 13

of drugs, which vitally affects the national economy and health of
the people.

23. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order
dated 15.10.2025 in CRM-M No. 46383 of 2025 (O&M) passed by
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh is set aside.

24. Pending applications, if there are any, stand dismissed.




……………………………………………..J.
(SANJAY KAROL)



………..…………………………………….J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)



New Delhi
June 2, 2026
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) 896/2026 Page 13 of 13