A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh allowed an appeal filed by the Punjab government against the grant of regular bail to Balraj Singh alias Billa, who is accused in a case involving the recovery of 1.465 kg of heroin.
Emphasising the gravity of offences involving commercial quantities of narcotics, the apex court held that courts must strictly adhere to the stringent conditions laid down under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act before granting bail.
“Whenever there is a conflict between the sovereignty of the nation and personal liberty, the former must prevail, particularly when a war is being waged against the country through the supply of drugs, which adversely impacts the economy and public health,” the Bench observed.
The case stems from an FIR registered in January 2024 after police seized 1.465 kg of heroin from two individuals travelling in a vehicle in Punjab’s Tarn Taran district. During the investigation, Balraj Singh was named based on disclosures allegedly made by the co-accused, who claimed they had been instructed by him to collect and store the contraband for further distribution while he was lodged in Goindwal Sahib Central Jail.
According to the prosecution, the accused was allegedly operating a drug trafficking network from inside the prison using unauthorised mobile phones.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court had granted bail to Singh in October 2025, citing the duration of his custody and the possibility of delays in concluding the trial. However, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had failed to consider the mandatory twin conditions prescribed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The apex court noted that the High Court had not recorded any satisfaction regarding whether there were reasonable grounds to believe the accused was not guilty or whether he was unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.
“It is evident that there has been no consideration of the twin conditions. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law,” the court said.
Referring to earlier judicial precedents, the Bench reiterated that a liberal approach in bail matters involving commercial quantities of narcotics is not permissible. Courts must carefully assess the statutory requirements before granting relief.
The Supreme Court also took note of the accused’s criminal history, observing that he had prior cases of a similar nature under the NDPS Act. In view of these antecedents, the court said it could not conclude that he would refrain from committing similar offences if released on bail.
Rejecting the argument that prolonged incarceration justified bail, the Bench pointed out that the accused had been in custody for only one year and seven months, while the alleged offence carries a maximum punishment of up to 20 years’ imprisonment.
The court observed that such a period could not be considered unduly long so as to warrant intervention under Article 21 of the Constitution on grounds of personal liberty.
At the same time, the Supreme Court acknowledged that there is no fixed benchmark for determining what constitutes “prolonged incarceration” in cases governed by special statutes such as the NDPS Act. It noted that the broader issue concerning the balance between constitutional rights, lengthy detention, and statutory restrictions on bail is already under consideration in another matter.
Stressing that the ultimate objective of the judicial process is to uphold the interests of justice, the apex court allowed the Punjab government’s appeal and set aside the High Court’s order granting bail to the accused.
