The Supreme Court allowed withdrawal of an SLP seeking regular bail in an NDPS Act and Arms Act case after making sharp observations on the accused’s criminal antecedents during the hearing, remarking on the petitioner’s extensive criminal history before permitting withdrawal of the plea.
The Supreme Court permitted the withdrawal of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by an accused seeking regular bail in a case involving offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act and the Arms Act, after making pointed observations regarding the petitioner’s criminal antecedents during the hearing.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice V Mohana was hearing a challenge to a March 5, 2026 judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had declined to grant regular bail to the petitioner in connection with FIR No. 233 of 2015 registered at Police Station Sadar Tarn Taran, Punjab.
The case involves allegations under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, Sections 307, 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Section 25 of the Arms Act. The prosecution has alleged that the accused was part of a criminal conspiracy linked to narcotics trafficking and other serious criminal activities.
During the course of the hearing, counsel appearing for the petitioner informed the Court that the accused had remained in custody for “about 3 years 11 months and 19 days.”
Responding to the submission, Justice Vikram Nath remarked:
“You have a glorious history.”
The petitioner’s counsel then submitted that although several criminal cases were pending against the accused, he had already secured bail in most of those matters.
Reacting to the statement, Justice Nath observed:
“He is on bail, very good. So, now there is no need for you to come out at all.”
Following the exchange, the petitioner’s counsel sought permission to withdraw the Special Leave Petition. The Court accepted the request and dismissed the plea as withdrawn.
The petition had been filed through Advocate-on-Record Disha Singh on behalf of Sajjan alias Piddhi, who challenged the High Court’s refusal to grant him regular bail.
According to the prosecution, the petitioner was allegedly associated with a larger conspiracy involving drug smuggling operations and armed criminal activities. Investigating agencies claimed that the accused was connected to an unlawful assembly and plans relating to serious offences, including narcotics trafficking.
The defence, however, argued that no narcotic substance was recovered directly from the petitioner. It was submitted that the recovery attributed to him was limited to a .315 bore pistol, cartridges and cash, whereas the principal recovery of approximately two kilograms of heroin and other incriminating material was allegedly made from a co-accused.
The petitioner further contended that the prosecution case primarily relied upon disclosure statements made by co-accused persons, which, according to settled legal principles, do not constitute substantive evidence by themselves. The defence also sought parity with other co-accused persons who had already been granted bail in the case.
Despite these submissions, the Supreme Court did not appear inclined to interfere with the High Court’s order refusing bail. In view of the Court’s observations and its apparent unwillingness to grant relief, the petitioner chose to withdraw the plea.
As a result, the challenge to the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order stands withdrawn, and the accused will continue to remain in custody in connection with the pending proceedings.
Case Title: Sajjan alias Piddhi v. State of Punjab
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE