2026 INSC 411

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.5020/2026 Page 1 of 12

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 S anhita,

2023 (hereinafter, “the BNSS”) seeking regular

bail in connection with FIR No. 06 of 2024 dated

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.5020/2026 Page 2 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 3 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2025, came to be dismissed as withdrawn on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 bee n 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 4 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 for the grant

of bail in offences involving commercial

quantity, and the impugned order is devoid of

any such finding. Reliance was placed on

Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif

1, State of

Meghalaya v. Lalrintluanga Sailo and Another

2,

and Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh

3.

Reliance was further placed on the observations

of this Court in Parwinder Singh v. State of

Punjab

4, 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 5 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 t he 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

Another

5 as followed in Dr. Rajinder Rajan v.

5

(2026) 1 SCC 500

Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.5020/2026 Page 6 of 12

Union of India

6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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.5075/2026 Page 1 of 11

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 2 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 3 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 4 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

Bureau v. Kashif

1, State of Meghalaya v.

Lalrintluanga Sailo and Another

2 and Union of

India v. Ajay Kumar Singh

3. 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 5 of 11

Parwinder Singh v. State of Punjab

4, 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 A rticle 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 6 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

Maharashtra and Another

5, as followed in Dr.

Rajinder Rajan v. Union of India

6, 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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.