The Supreme Court ruled that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot override strict bail conditions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. It set aside the High Court’s bail order for failing to satisfy mandatory “twin conditions” under Section 37 in a commercial quantity drug case.
The Supreme Court of India has once again made it clear that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be used to ignore the strict conditions for bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Court emphasized that in cases involving commercial quantities of drugs, courts must strictly follow the mandatory conditions laid down in Section 37 of the Act before granting bail.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih set aside the bail orders granted earlier by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Court highlighted that before granting bail in such serious offences, judges must record their satisfaction on the “twin conditions” — that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty, and that they are not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
ALSO READ: Snake Venom Case | Supreme Court Separated Elvish Yadav’s Pleas for Hearing
The Bench strongly observed,
“…What the High Court has, instead, proceeded on is the proposition that “the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted bearing in mind the right to a speedy trial”. The right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is undoubtedly a valuable constitutional guarantee; but in the context of a special statute such as the NDPS Act dealing with commercial quantity, that right has to be read alongside, and not in displacement of, the mandate of Section 37. The omission to record the twin satisfaction prescribed by the statute, it appears, may have escaped the attention of the High Court”.
The case arose from an incident on January 10, 2024, in Tarn Taran district, Punjab, where authorities intercepted a vehicle and recovered 1.465 kilograms of heroin from two accused, Sukhwinder Singh and Gurjit Singh. Following their arrest, charges were framed on July 20, 2024, under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, which deal with possession and criminal conspiracy relating to commercial quantities of narcotics.
Initially, the accused had filed bail applications that were either withdrawn or dismissed by the High Court. However, in their second round of bail petitions, they managed to secure bail on February 18, 2026. The High Court had granted relief primarily on the grounds of prolonged custody and slow progress of the trial, noting that only two out of twenty-four witnesses had been examined.
The State of Punjab challenged this decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court failed to follow the mandatory legal requirements under Section 37. The Supreme Court agreed with this contention and pointed out serious lapses in the High Court’s reasoning.
The Court noted that the High Court did not properly consider the earlier bail applications or explain any change in circumstances that justified granting bail. It also found that the accused had not made full and honest disclosures about their previous cases and criminal background while seeking bail.
Critically examining the conduct of the accused, the Bench observed,
“The manner in which the respondent disclosed CRM-M No. 58082 of 2025 in paragraph 14 of his bail petition before the High Court also does not escape the attention of this Court. The disclosure stops at the case number; it neither states what the case was, nor what became of it. A disclosure so worded, in a matter where the Court is called upon to record its satisfaction on the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, falls well short of the candour that an applicant seeking the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction is bound to observe. It is a settled principle that he who invokes the discretion of the Court must approach it with clean hands and place the full picture before it. A disclosure that is calculated to obscure rather than illuminate cannot, in the eye of the law, be regarded as a disclosure at all…”.
The Supreme Court further pointed out that the High Court’s observation that the accused had no previous criminal cases was incorrect, as one of the respondents had admitted to being involved in a prior FIR. This contradiction raised serious concerns about the accuracy of the High Court’s findings.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the State of Punjab and set aside the bail orders dated February 18, 2026. The accused persons have been directed to surrender before the Trial Court within one week. However, the Court has given them the liberty to apply again for regular bail after surrendering, in accordance with the law.
Case Title:
State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora
(Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 411)
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on NDPS
![[Bulldozer Justice] "If One Person in a House is Accused, Would Authorities Be Permitted to Remove Shelter From All?" - Supreme Court Challenges ‘Bulldozer Justice’](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Suprem-Court-jpg-1020%C3%97534-11-13-2024_02_28_PM.png?resize=420%2C345&ssl=1)
