Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Punjab against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court granting regular bail to Respondents in connection with FIR No. 06 of 2024 under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The case arose from a vehicle check on 10.01.2024 near Village Veeram, District Tarn Taran, where a Mahindra XUV-300 was intercepted and 1.465 kilograms of heroin (commercial quantity) was recovered from the respondent and co-accused Gurjit Singh @ Geetu. The chargesheet was filed on 21.06.2024 and charges were framed on 20.07.2024. The respondent's first bail application (CRM-M No. 58082 of 2025) was dismissed as withdrawn on 27.10.2025. A second petition (CRM-M No. 70945 of 2025) was allowed by the High Court on 18.02.2026, granting bail on grounds that the respondent had been in custody for 2 years, 1 month and 2 days, was not involved in any other case, only 2 out of 24 prosecution witnesses had been examined, trial would take time, and further incarceration would violate Article 21. The High Court observed that 'the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted bearing in mind the right to a speedy trial.' The Supreme Court held that the impugned order was vitiated because it failed to record the mandatory satisfaction under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, which requires the court to believe that the accused is not guilty and not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The Court clarified that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 must be harmonised with Section 37 and cannot override it. Additionally, the High Court erroneously recorded that the respondent was not involved in any other case, whereas the respondent himself admitted in his petition that there was one more FIR against him. The impugned order also failed to mention the earlier dismissal of the first bail petition or any change in circumstances. The Supreme Court set aside the bail order and directed the respondent to surrender within one week, with liberty to apply afresh before the competent court.
Headnote
A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 37(1)(b)(ii) - Bail - Twin Conditions - Mandatory Recording of Satisfaction - In cases involving commercial quantity, the court must record satisfaction on two cumulative conditions: (i) reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty, and (ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Non-recording of such satisfaction vitiates the grant of bail. (Paras 9-10) B) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 37 - Right to Speedy Trial under Article 21 - Harmonious Construction - The right to speedy trial under Article 21 cannot be used to dilute the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Both must be read harmoniously; delay in trial alone cannot override the statutory conditions for bail in commercial quantity cases. (Para 10) C) Criminal Procedure - Successive Bail Petition - Disclosure of Earlier Petition - Change in Circumstances - A court entertaining a successive bail petition under a special statute must refer to the fate of the earlier petition and record what change in circumstances justifies fresh consideration. The impugned order was silent on the earlier dismissal, which was a material omission. (Para 12) D) Criminal Procedure - Duty of Applicant - Clean Hands - An applicant seeking discretionary relief must approach the court with clean hands and make full and candid disclosure. A disclosure that is calculated to obscure rather than illuminate cannot be regarded as a disclosure at all. (Para 13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in granting regular bail to the respondent under Section 483 BNSS in a case involving commercial quantity of heroin without recording the mandatory satisfaction under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, and whether the impugned order suffers from non-consideration of relevant facts.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 18.02.2026 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CRM-M No. 70945 of 2025 is set aside. Respondent directed to surrender before the Trial Court within one week from the date of the order. Liberty granted to apply afresh for regular bail before the competent court on surrender. Pending applications disposed of.
Law Points
- Section 37(1)(b)(ii) NDPS Act
- twin conditions mandatory
- recording of satisfaction sine qua non for bail in commercial quantity cases
- right to speedy trial under Article 21 must be harmonised with Section 37
- successive bail petition requires disclosure of earlier dismissal and change in circumstances
- applicant must approach with clean hands
