Case Name: STATE OF PUNJAB v. BALRAJ SINGH @ BILLA

Petition No.:  Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 896 of 2026

Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 618

Date of Judgement: 02.06.2026

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Relevant Provisions: Section 37 and Section 50 of the NDPS (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act), 1985; Article 21 of the Constitution of India; Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

INTRODUCTION

In State of Punjab v. Balraj Singh @ Billa, the Supreme Court considered whether a High Court can grant regular bail to an accused charged with a commercial quantity offence under the NDPS Act without recording satisfaction on the twin conditions prescribed under Section 37(1)(b)(ii). The Court also took note of the inconsistency in judicial decisions concerning the doctrine of prolonged incarceration as a ground for bail under special statutes where statutory restrictions on bail operate.

FACTS

A police party had set up a checkpoint on Canal Road, Village. Upon sighting the police, a car attempted to flee but came to a stop on the roadside. The two occupants failed to provide satisfactory answers regarding the vehicle’s documents. A notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was issued, and the DSP conducted a search after obtaining signed consent memos. A total of 1.465 kg of heroin was recovered, weighed, sealed, and seized. The FSL report confirmed the substance was diacetylmorphine/heroin. The case against the respondent rested on a disclosure made by the co-accused, that the respondent while lodged in Central Jail, Goindwal Sahib,  had directed them to collect the heroin from the canal area and hold it for further supply. He was accordingly arrayed as an accused. Investigation further revealed that the respondent was allegedly operating a drug trafficking network from inside jail through illegal mobile phones.

The respondent’s application for regular bail before the Special Court, Tarn Taran was rejected. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, by the impugned order, granted regular bail, relying on the period of custody undergone and the likely delay in trial, observing that criminal antecedents alone cannot be a ground to refuse bail. The bail orders of the two co-accused persons arising from the same FIR had already been set aside by the Supreme Court. Pursuant to an interim order of the Supreme Court dated 07.04.2026, the respondent surrendered, as confirmed by an affidavit dated 09.04.2026.

ISSUE

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? 

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

The State of Punjab submitted that the High Court had disregarded the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, in violation of binding precedents including State of Meghalaya v. Lalrintluanga Sailo & Anr. (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1751) and Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh (2023 SCC OnLine SC 346). It was further submitted that the case involved a commercial quantity of narcotics and that the respondent had three prior antecedents for offences of a similar nature. The respondent submitted that the High Court had correctly granted bail, he had no connection with the subject FIR, and was not named in it, and that no recovery had been effected directly from him. He further argued that he had been in custody for one year and seven months, the investigation had concluded, and only 2 out of 24 prosecution witnesses had been examined, making an early conclusion of trial unlikely.

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order. The Court reiterated that an appeal against the grant of bail and an application for cancellation of bail operate on different footings, citing Ashok Dhankad v. State NCT of Delhi (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1690).

The Court said that in cases involving a commercial quantity of narcotic drugs, a court entertaining a bail application is bound to apply the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act: first, that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence; and second, that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 

Relying on Lalrintluanga Sailo (supra), the Court held that “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds, it requires substantial and probable cause for believing that the accused is not guilty. This position was further affirmed by reference to State by the Inspector of Police v. B. Ramu (2024 SCC OnLine SC 4073) wherein it was held that satisfaction with the conditions laid down under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is mandatory while entertaining a prayer for bail involving commercial quantities of narcotic drugs. 

On examining the impugned order, the Court found that the High Court had made no consideration whatsoever of the twin conditions and had relied solely on the period of custody and trial delay. The Court held that the impugned order could not be sustained in law. The Court held that no case for bail was made out. In view of the respondent’s three antecedents for similar offences under the NDPS Act, it could not be said that he was unlikely to commit such an offence while on bail. On the question of incarceration period, the Court noted that one year and seven months of custody could not be treated as unreasonably long, given that the maximum sentence upon conviction could be twenty years.

The Court also observed that the application of the prolonged incarceration doctrine was not uniform across coordinate benches. It presented a comparative chart of decisions and noted that the question of what constitutes ‘prolonged incarceration’ for the purpose of bail under special statutes has not been authoritatively defined. It declined to deliberate further on this issue in view of a reference already made in Tasleem Ahmed v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi (Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 2867/2026) on the intersection of Article 21, prolonged incarceration, and statutory restrictions. The Court observed that the paramount consideration is the interest of justice for all, and that where there is a conflict between national sovereignty and personal liberty, the former must prevail.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order dated 15.10.2025 granting regular bail to the respondent. The judgment reaffirms that in cases involving commercial quantity of narcotics under the NDPS Act, recording of satisfaction on the mandatory twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) is mandatory and non-negotiable and cannot be substituted by considerations of custody period or trial delay. Pending applications, if any, were dismissed.