Case at a Glance
Police recovered 1.465 kg of heroin from two men in a car in Punjab in January 2024. One of them said the respondent, then lodged in jail, had directed them to collect and hold the drugs, and investigators alleged he ran a drug network from jail using illegal mobile phones. The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted him regular bail, citing custody and the likely length of trial. The Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeal and set the bail aside, holding that the High Court did not consider the twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act at all and that, given three similar antecedents, he was likely to reoffend.
On 10 January 2024 police at a checkpoint on Canal Road, Village Veeram, stopped a car whose occupants tried to flee. After notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, a Deputy Superintendent of Police searched them and recovered 1.465 kg of heroin, later confirmed by the forensic report. A case was registered under Sections 21(c), 29, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act. The next day a co-accused disclosed that the respondent, then in Central Jail, Goindwal Sahib, had told them to collect the heroin and keep it for supply, and he was made an accused.
The Special Court, Tarn Taran, rejected his bail on 3 July 2025. On 15 October 2025 the High Court granted regular bail, holding that antecedents alone could not justify refusal and relying on the custody period and length of trial. The respondent argued he was not named in the FIR, nothing was recovered from him, investigation was complete and only 2 of 24 prosecution witnesses had been examined. The Supreme Court had separately set aside the bail of the two co-accused on 24 April 2026.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a High Court grant bail in a commercial-quantity NDPS case without recording satisfaction on the twin conditions of Section 37?
The Twin Conditions Cannot Be Skipped
The Court first noted that an appeal against a bail order and an application to cancel bail stand on different footings, following Ashok Dhankad v. State NCT of Delhi, (2025) 08 SC CK 0245. Where commercial quantity is involved, Section 37 requires the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit an offence on bail. Relying on Collector of Customs v. Ahmadalieva Nodira, it said ‘reasonable grounds’ means more than prima facie grounds, and it applied State by the Inspector of Police v. B. Ramu, Union of India v. Namdeo Ashruba Nakade and Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh alias Pappu. The High Court had not considered these conditions at all.
On the facts, the respondent’s three antecedents of the same nature showed he was likely to reoffend if released. On Article 21, custody of 1 year 7 months against a possible maximum of twenty years was not prolonged incarceration. The Court noted varying outcomes among coordinate benches on delay and bail in NDPS cases, but declined to go further on that question since Tasleem Ahmed v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi has referred it to a larger bench. It observed that drug supply ‘vitally affects the national economy and health of the people’.
What the Court Actually Held
- A bail order in a commercial-quantity NDPS case that does not address the twin conditions of Section 37 cannot stand.
- ‘Reasonable grounds’ under Section 37 means more than prima facie grounds.
- Three antecedents of a similar nature showed a likelihood of reoffending, and 1 year 7 months’ custody was not prolonged enough to justify bail under Article 21.
- The High Court’s order of 15 October 2025 was set aside and the State’s appeal allowed.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It reminds High Courts that custody and trial delay cannot substitute for the Section 37 analysis in commercial-quantity cases.
- It treats similar antecedents as relevant to the second Section 37 condition, the likelihood of reoffending.
- It flags the conflicting approach on delay-based bail in NDPS cases, now pending before a larger bench in Tasleem Ahmed.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Accused and Families
- In commercial-quantity cases, bail requires the court to record reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and will not reoffend.
- Long custody may help only when it is genuinely prolonged relative to the possible sentence.
For Counsel
- Address both Section 37 conditions expressly in bail arguments and ask the court to record findings.
- Watch for the larger bench ruling in Tasleem Ahmed on delay and Article 21 in NDPS cases.
Key Takeaways
- Section 37 twin conditions are mandatory in commercial-quantity cases.
- Reasonable grounds means more than prima facie grounds.
- Similar antecedents weigh against bail.
- 1 year 7 months’ custody was not prolonged incarceration here.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the twin conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act?
The court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
Can long custody alone justify bail in NDPS cases?
Not here. The Court held 1 year 7 months against a possible 20-year sentence was not prolonged; the wider question is pending before a larger bench.
Does it matter that nothing was recovered from the accused?
The respondent raised this, but the Court found the High Court had failed to apply Section 37 and, given his antecedents, no case for bail was made out.
Conclusion
The judgment is a firm reminder that bail in commercial-quantity drug cases is governed by a statutory test, and that a bail order which never engages with it will not survive appeal.
Practical takeaway: Whether seeking or opposing NDPS bail in commercial-quantity cases, frame arguments around both Section 37 conditions; courts must record findings on them.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com