Case Note & Summary
The State of Punjab appealed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana granting regular bail to Balraj Singh @ Billa in connection with FIR No. 06/2024 under Sections 21(c), 29, 61, and 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The case involved the recovery of 1.465 kg of heroin, a commercial quantity, from co-accused Gurjit Singh @ Geetu and Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora. The respondent was implicated based on their disclosure statements that he had directed them to collect the heroin from the canal area while he was lodged in Central Jail, Goindwal Sahib. The respondent's bail application was rejected by the Special Court, Tarn Taran, on 03.07.2025. However, the High Court granted bail on 15.10.2025, primarily on the ground that the respondent was not named in the FIR and was implicated solely on the basis of disclosure statements. The Supreme Court, in appeal, examined the legality of the bail order in light of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes stringent conditions for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities. The Court noted that the High Court had not recorded a prima facie satisfaction that the respondent was not guilty and unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. Additionally, the High Court failed to consider the respondent's criminal antecedents, including multiple pending cases under the NDPS Act. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order was contrary to the statutory mandate and set aside the bail. The respondent was directed to surrender forthwith. The Court clarified that the observations were only for the purpose of bail and would not affect the trial.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Narcotic Drugs - Bail - Section 37 NDPS Act, 1985 - Commercial Quantity - The High Court granted bail to an accused involved in recovery of 1.465 kg heroin, a commercial quantity, without properly applying the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to record a prima facie satisfaction that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit any offence while on bail, as mandated by Section 37. The bail order was set aside. (Paras 2-13) B) Criminal Law - Narcotic Drugs - Disclosure by Co-accused - Section 67 NDPS Act, 1985 - Evidentiary Value - The respondent was implicated based on disclosure statements of co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. The Supreme Court noted that such statements, though admissible, require corroboration. However, the Court did not decide on the merits of the evidence at this stage, but emphasized that the High Court ought to have considered the seriousness of the allegations and the statutory bar under Section 37. (Paras 5-12) C) Criminal Law - Narcotic Drugs - Criminal Antecedents - Section 37 NDPS Act, 1985 - Bail - The respondent had multiple criminal cases pending against him, including under the NDPS Act. The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to consider the criminal antecedents of the accused, which is a relevant factor while assessing the likelihood of the accused committing an offence while on bail. The bail order was set aside. (Paras 10-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in granting regular bail to the respondent under the NDPS Act, 1985, despite the recovery of a commercial quantity of heroin and the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 15.10.2025, and directed the respondent to surrender forthwith. The bail granted to the respondent was cancelled.
Law Points
- Bail under NDPS Act
- Section 37 conditions
- commercial quantity
- twin conditions
- prima facie case
- disclosure by co-accused
- criminal antecedents
