01Facts
On January 10, 2024, the Punjab Police intercepted a vehicle and apprehended the respondents, from whom 1.465 kilograms of heroin (commercial quantity) was recovered
p. 2 · ¶ 3Charges were framed on July 20, 2024, under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act
p. 2 · ¶ 3The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to both respondents on February 18, 2026, primarily on the grounds of "prolonged incarceration" (2 years and 1 month), a slow trial (2 of 24 witnesses examined), and the perceived need to dilute statutory rigors to protect Article 21 rights
p. 3 · ¶ 5The State appealed, noting that the respondents had obscured prior bail dismissals and that the High Court failed to apply mandatory statutory tests
p. 4 · ¶ 6 · pp. 8-9 · ¶ 11-1202Issues
i.1. Whether the High Court can grant bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics without recording a specific satisfaction of the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act
p. 6 · ¶ 9-10ii.2. Whether the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution can be used to "dilute" or override the mandatory statutory requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act
p. 7 · ¶ 10iii.3. Whether the failure of the applicants to fully disclose the status of previous bail applications vitiates the discretionary relief of bail
pp. 9, para 12-1303Law Applied
The Court applied Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which mandates that bail cannot be granted for commercial quantity offences unless the court is satisfied there are reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail
p. 6 · ¶ 9It relied on Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif (2024) and State of Meghalaya v. Lalrintluanga Sailo (2024), establishing that recording this satisfaction is a mandatory jurisdictional pre-condition
p. 7 · ¶ 9-10The Court also referenced Article 21 of the Constitution, emphasizing that it must be read harmoniously with special penal statutes
p. 8 · ¶ 10Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 21Section 29Section 37Section 42Section 50Section 52
04Reasoning
The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s approach was "plainly contrary to settled law" because it expressly sought to "dilute" Section 37 rigors based on Article 21, rather than recording the mandatory twin satisfaction
p. 7 · ¶ 10The Court reasoned that Section 37 is not a mere formality; its non-observance vitiates the grant of bail
p. 7 · ¶ 9The Court reached the conclusion that the High Court’s factual findings were flawed; specifically, the High Court recorded the respondents had no other cases despite their own admissions of criminal antecedents in the pleadings
p. 8 · ¶ 11The Bench criticized the respondents' lack of candor for only providing case numbers of prior bail dismissals without disclosing the adverse outcomes, noting that those seeking discretionary relief must approach the court with "clean hands"
p. 10 · ¶ 1305Holding
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court’s orders dated February 18, 2026. The Court held that statutory rigors for bail in commercial quantity cases cannot be bypassed solely due to trial delay
p. 11 · ¶ 15 · p. 8 · ¶ 10Both respondents were directed to surrender before the Trial Court within one week, with liberty to apply for bail afresh before the competent court upon surrender
p. 12 · ¶ 16Original Court PDF
State Of PunjabvsSukhwinder Singh @ Gora
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
