Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karanbir Singh @ Karan vs State Of Punjab on 6 May, 2026
CRM-M--3391-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
153 CRM-M-3391-2026
Karanbir Singh alias Karan
....Petitioner
V/s
State of Punjab
....Respondent
Date of decision: 06.05.2026
Date of Uploading : 06.05.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. DPS Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG Punjab.
*****
SUMEET GOEL,
GOEL J. (Oral)
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha
Su Sanhita seeking grant of regular bail to the
petitioner in case bearing FIR No.121
No.121 dated 02.06.2025
02.06.2025,, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections
Sections 21(c), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act and
Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Lopoke, District
rict Amritsar
Rural.
2. The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that ASI
Sukhwinderjit Singh, alongwith a police team was on patrol duty near T-
T
Point Dalle Ke Sahura Road, Police Station Lopoke, District Amritsar
(Rural), in official vehicle. During patrolling, a secret info
informer
rmer informed
that three persons namely Jodhbir Singh @ Kohli, Buta Singh @ Vishal and
Karanbir Singh @ Karan (petitioner herein) were engaged in the illegal
trade of Diacetylmorphone (Heroin) and illegal ammunition and were
AJAY KUMAR
2026.05.06 16:50
coming on a Swaraj Tractor (Blue)
I attest to the accuracy and (Blue) bearing No.PB
No.PB-30AB-4646
4646 with a
integrity of this document
CRM-M–3391-2026 2
trolley from village Dalle via kacha Path to deliver the contraband. The
police team immediately conducted a raid and apprehended the three
suspects on the said route. After informing them of their legal rights under
Section 50 of NDPS Act and upon their request, Sh. Inderjit Singh, D
DSP,
SP,
Sub-Division
Division Raja Sansi (Gazetted Officer) was called to the spot. In the
presence of the said Gazetted officer, from the black bag of accused Jodhbir
Singh, 1.5 kgs of Heroin was recovered, from accused Buta Singh, 540
grams of Heroin in a polythene bag was recovered and from accused
Karanbir Singh (petitioner herein),, one pistol (Made in Austria) was
recovered from his undergarment. All the recoveries were sealed with seals
“SS” and “IS”. The accused persons were arrested and the case property
including
uding the tractor and trolley was taken into police possession.
Accordingly, the instant FIR was registered and investigation ensued.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the
petitioner is a young man aged about 19 years and has been falsely
implicated into the FIR in question as he has no connection whatsoever with
the alleged recovery of narcotic substance. Learned counsel has further
iterated that no contraband has been recovered from the conscious
possession of the petitioner and the entire recovery of commercial quantity
of heroin has been effected from the co-accused
co accused & only a pistol without any
ammunition has allegedly been recovered. It has been further submitted that
no independent witness was joined at the time of al
alleged
leged recovery which
creates a serious doubt about the credibility of the investigation.
Furthermore, the entire case rests upon official witnesses which make the
AJAY KUMAR
prosecution story highly doubtful. It has been further contended that the
2026.05.06 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M–3391-2026 3
petitioner has been in custody since 02.06.2025
02.06.2025,, the investigation is
complete and challan has already been presented. The trial is likely to take
considerable time to conclude and in such circumstances, the continued
continue
incarceration would serve no useful purpose. On the strength
ength of aforesaid
submissions, the grant of petition in hand is entreated for.
4. Per contra, learned
earned State counsel has vehemently opposed the
grant of bail to the petitioner by arguing that the instant case involves
recovery of commercial quantity of co
contraband
ntraband thereby attracting the
stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. According to learned
State counsel, 01 kg 500 grams of heroin has been recovered from co-
co
accused namely Jodhbir Singh @ Kohali and 540 grams from co
co-accused
accused
Buta Singh @ Vishal,
Vishal, which clearly falls within the category of commercial
quantity and the petitioner was apprehended at the spot alongwith them on
the basis of credible secret information. Learned State counsel has
emphasized that the presence of the petitioner at th
thee spot alongwith co-
co
accused, who were found in possession of huge quantity of heroin coupled
with the recovery of illegal firearm (Glock pistol) from him prima facie
establishes his active participation in the illegal trade and attracts the
provisions of Section
Section 29 of the NDPS Act. Given the nature and gravity of
offence, the petitioner does not satisfy the twin conditions laid down under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act as there are no reasonable grounds to believe
that he is not guilty of the offence or is unl
unlikely
ikely to commit a similar offence
while on bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody
certificate dated 04.05.2026 in Court today
today, which is taken on record. As
AJAY KUMAR
per the said custody, the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 10 months
2026.05.06 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M–3391-2026 4
and 25 days.
days In view of the nature of the allegations, learned State counsel
has prayed for the dismissal of the instant petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have
perused the available record.
6. Before delving further into
nto the merits of the case, it would be
apposite to refer herein to the following case
case-law(s) germane to the matter
in issue:
(i) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India
versus Namdeo Ashruba Nakade, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No.9792/2025 has held as under:
No.9792/2025,
“8. This Court is of the view that the issue of substance abuse
has emerged as a global public health crisis in the twenty
twenty-first
first
century, affecting every country worldwide, as drug trafficking
and addiction have become per pervasive.
vasive. The United Nations Office
on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) reported in its 2025 World Drug
Report that “As at 2023, some 316 million people worldwide had
used drugs in the past year, representing an increase over the past
decade that outpaces population growth, which indicates a higher
prevalence of drug use.”
9. In India, there has been a concerning increase in drug
abuse among the youth. Substance abuse not only affects
individuals, families, and communities but also undermines
various aspects of health th including physical, social, political,
cultural foundations, and mental well
well-being.
being. (See: “Bhattacharya
S, Menon GS, Garg S, Grover A, Saleem SM, Kushwaha P. The
lingering menace of drug abuse among the Indian youth – it’s time
for action. Indian J Comm
Community Med 2025;50:S9-12, 12, published on
17th April, 2025”)
10. According to many news reports, India faces a clear
dilemma between tackling the narcotics crisis systematically or
sacrificing its most valuable resource i.e. its young people. The
extent of menace
enace of drug abuse has also been highlighted by this
Court in the case of Ankush Vipan Kapoor v. National
Investigation Agency, (2025) 5 SCC 155 wherein this Court has
observed as under:
“9.1 The ills of drug abuse seem to be shadowing the
length and breadth
eadth of our country with the Central and
every State Government fighting against the menace of
substance abuse. The debilitating impact of drug trade and
drug abuse is an immediate and serious concern for India.
As the globe grapples with the menace of es escalating
calating
Substance Use Disorders (“SUD”) and an ever accessible
drug market, the consequences leave a generational Page
AJAY KUMAR 75 of 84 imprint on public health and even national
2026.05.06 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and security. Article 47 of the Constitution makes it a duty of
integrity of this document
CRM-M–3391-2026 5the State to regard the raising of the level of nutrition and
the standard of living of its people and the improvement of
public health as among its primary duties and in particular
the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the
consumption except for medicinal purpo
purposes
ses of intoxicating
drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health. The
State has a responsibility to address the root causes of this
predicament and develop effective intervention strategies
to ensure that India’s younger population, which is
particularly
rly vulnerable to substance abuse, is protected
and saved from such menace. This is particularly because
substance abuse is linked to social problems and can
contribute to child maltreatment, spousal violence, and
even property crime in a family.”
11. In the present case, this Court finds that though the
Respondent-accused
accused was in custody for one year four months and
charges have not been framed, yet the allegations are serious
inasmuch as not only is the recovery much in excess of the
commercial quantity but the Respondent
Respondent-accused
accused allegedly got the
cavities ingeniously fabricated below the trailor to conceal the
contraband.
12. Prima facie this Court is of the opinion that the
Respondent-accused
accused is involved in drug trafficking in an
organized manner. Consequently,
sequently, no case for dispensing with
mandatory requirement of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is made out
in the present matter.
13. Moreover, this Court is of the view that as the accused has
been charged with offences punishable with ten to twenty years
rigorous
igorous imprisonment, it cannot be said that the Respondent has
been incarcerated for an unreasonably long time.”
ii) Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of
India versus Vigin K. Varghese, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s).7768
of 2025,, has held as under:
“15. At this stage, two features stand out. The High Court’s
conclusion that there is no material to show that the applicant had
any knowledge of the cocaine in the consignment has been arrived
at without discussion of the statements of the respondent and
circumstances
mstances relied upon by the prosecution, including the
assertion that the respondent had placed the orders for import,
controlled the logistics chain, coordinated with the overseas
supplier, and was present when the consignment was opened. The
High Court has
as not examined whether those circumstances, taken
at face value for the limited purpose of bail, could prima facie
indicate conscious control or involvement sufficient to attract the
presumption of culpable mental state indicated under Section 35
of the NDPS Act.
16. Further, while granting bail, the High Court recorded that
there were no antecedents against the applicant. The material
before this Court includes the Union’s assertion that the
respondent had already been apprehended in connection with an
earlier seizure of approximately 198.1 kilograms of
AJAY KUMAR
Methamphetamine and 9.035 kilograms of Cocaine allegedly
2026.05.06 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and
imported through the same channel only days before the present
integrity of this document
CRM-M–3391-2026 6seizure. That assertion is neither noticed nor answered in the
impugned orders.
17. The High Court then, on the strength of those premises,
recorded a finding that there exist reasonable grounds to believe
that the applicant is not guilty of the alleged offence, treating
prolonged incarceration and likely delay as the justification for f
bail. Such a finding is not a casual observation. It is the statutory
threshold under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) which would disentitle the
discretionary relief and grant of bail must necessarily rest on
careful appraisal of the material available. A conclusi
conclusionon of this
nature, if returned without addressing the prosecution’s assertions
of operative control and antecedent involvement, risks trenching
upon appreciation of evidence which would be in the domain of
trial court at first instance.”
iii) This Court in the case of Jaswinder Singh alias Kala versus
State of Punjab, passed in CRM-M-33729
33729-2025 (2025:PHHC:089161)) =
2025 SCC OnLine P&H4537;
P&H4537 after relying upon the ratio decidendi of the
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs.
Thamisharasi & Ors, 1995(4) SCC 190, Customs, New Delhi vs.
Ahmadalieva Nodira, 2004 (3) SCC 549, Union of India vs. Shri Shiv
Shanker Kesari, 2007(4) RCR(Criminal) 186, Satpal Singh vs. State of
Punjab, 2018 (13) SCC 813, Narcotics Cont
Control
rol Bureau vs. Mohit Aggarwal,
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 613, Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
2023 LiveLaw (SC) 260, Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Kashif, 2024 INSC
1045, Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon vs. State of Gujarat, 1988(1)
RCR(Criminal) 540, Ranjitsing
Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma vs. State of
Maharashtra & Anr. 2005(5) SCC 294, Central Bureau of
Investigation vs. Vs. Vijay Sai Reddy, 2013(3) RCR (Criminal) 252,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. M/s Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar and
another, 1987(4) SCC 497, Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs.
Unique Erectors (Gujarat) (P) Ltd., and another, 1987(1) SCC 532,
Collector and others vs. P. Mangamma and others, 2003(4) SCC 488,
AJAY KUMAR
2026.05.06 16:50
Commissioner of Income-tax,
I attest to the accuracy and Income tax, Delhi vs. S. Teja Singh, 1958 SCC Online SC
integrity of this document
CRM-M–3391-2026 7
30, Management of Advance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shri Gurudasmal and
others 1970(1) SCC 633, Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. State of
Assam, 1989(3) SCC 709 and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Hindustan
Bulk Carriers, 2003(3) SCC 57;
57; has held, thus:
“14. As a sequitur to aboveabove-said
said rumination, the
following postulates emerge:
(I) (i) A bail plea on merits; in respect of an FIR under NDPS
Act of 1985 involving offence(s) under Section 19 or Section 24 or
Section 27-AA thereof and for offence(s) involving commercial
quantity; is essentially required to meet with the rigour(s) of
Section 37 of NDPS Act.
(ii) The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act do not apply to a
bail plea(s) on medical ground(s), interim bail on account of any
exigency including the reason of demise of a close family relative
etc.
(iii) The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act pale into oblivion
when bail is sought for on account of long incarceration in view of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. where the bail
bail-applicant
applicant
has suffered long under-trial
trial custody, the trial is procrastinating
and folly thereof is not attributable to such bail
bail-applicant.
II. The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act
are in addition to the conditions/parameters contained in
Cr.P.C./BNSS or any other applicable extant law.
III. The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act
are cumulative in nature and not alternative i.e. both the
conditions are required to be satisfied for a bail
bail-plea
plea to be
successful.
IV. For consideration by bail Court of the condition stipulated in
Section 37(1)(b)(i) of NDPS Act i.e. ” “there
there are reasonable
grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence”:
(i) The bail Court ought to sift through all relevant material,
including case-dairy,
dairy, exclusively for the limited purpose of
adjudicating such bail plea.
(ii) Such consideration, concerning the assessment of guilt or
innocence, should not mirror the same degree of scrutiny required
for an acquittal of the accused at the ffinal
inal adjudication &
culmination of trial.
(iii) Plea(s) of defence by applicant
applicant-accused,
accused, if any, including
material/documents in support thereof, may be looked into by the
bail-Court
Court while adjudicating such bail plea.
V. For consideration of the condition stipulated in Section
37(1)(b)(ii) i.e. ‘he
he is not likely to commit any offence while on
AJAY KUMAR bail’:
2026.05.06 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M–3391-2026 8
(i) The word ‘likely” ought to be interpreted as requiring a
demonstrable and substantial probability of re re-offending
offending by the
bail-applicant, rather than
an a mere theoretical one, as no Court
can predict future conduct of the bail
bail-applicant.
(ii) The entire factual matrix of a given case including the
antecedents of the bail-applicant,
applicant, role ascribed to him, and the
nature of offence are required to be de
delved
lved into. However, the
involvement of bail-applicant
applicant in another NDPS/other offence
cannot ipso facto result in the conclusion of his propensity for
committing offence in the future.
(iii) The bail-Court
Court may, at the time of granting bail, impose
upon the applicant-accused
accused a condition that he would submit, at
such regular time period/interval as may stipulated by the Court
granting bail, an affidavit before concerned Special Judge of
NDPS Court/Illaqa (Jurisdictional) Judicial Magistrate/concerned
Police Station,
tation, to the effect that he has not been involved in
commission of any offence after being released on bail. In the
facts of a given case, imposition of such condition may be
considered to be sufficient for satisfaction of condition
enumerated in Sectionn 37(1)(b)(ii).
VI. There is no gainsaying that the nature, mode and extent of
exercise of power by a Court; while satisfying itself regarding the
conditions stipulated in Section 37 of NDPS Act; shall depend
upon the judicial discretion exercised by such Court in the facts
and circumstances of a given case. No exhaustive guidelines can
possibly be laid down as to what would constitute parameters for
satisfaction of requirement under Section 37 ((ibid)) as every case
has its own unique facts/circumstance
facts/circumstances.
s. Making such an attempt
is nothing but a utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to
the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such
matter.”
7. The grant of bail falls within the discretionary domain of the
court; however, such
such discretion must be exercised in a judicious and
principled manner, ensuring it aligns with established legal precedents and
the interests of justice. While considering a bail application, the Court
ourt must
evaluate factors such as the existence of prima facie evidence implicating
the accused, the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, and the severity
of the likely sentence upon conviction. The Court
ourt must also assess the
likelihood of the accused absconding or evading the due process of law, the
probability
ility of the offence being repeated and any reasonable apprehension
AJAY KUMAR
of the accused tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
2026.05.06 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M–3391-2026 9
Additionally, the character, antecedents, financial means, societal standing
and overall conduct of the accused play a cruc
crucial
ial role. Furthermore, the
Court
ourt must weigh the potential danger of bail undermining the
administration of justice or thwarting its due course. A profitable reference
in this regard is made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
titled as State
State through C.B.I. vs. Amaramani Tripathi
Tripathi,, 2005 AIR Supreme
Court 3490, relevant whereof reads as under:
14. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application
for bail are (i)whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to
believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of
the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv)
danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; (v) character,
behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;(vi) likelihood of the
offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by
grant of bail (see Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi, 2001(2) RCR
(Criminal) 377 (SC) :2001(4) SCC 280 and Gurcharan Singh v. State
(Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 Supreme Court 179
179).
). While a vague
allegation that accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not
be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere
presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to
show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the
evidence, then bail will be refused. We may also refer to the fol
following
lowing
principles relating to grant or refusal of bail stated in Kalyan Chandra
Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 254 (SC) :2004(7) SCC
528 :”The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The
court granting bail should exercise
xercise its discretion in a judicious manner and
not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed
examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the
case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders
reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly
where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any
order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non
non-application
application of mind. It is
also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other
AJAY KUMAR
2026.05.06 16:50 circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are:
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M–3391-2026 10
a. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of
conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.
b. Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension
ofthreat to the complainant.
c. Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (see Ram
GovindUpadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 250 (SC) :
2002(3) SCC 598 andPuran
an v. Ram Bilas, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 801
(SC) : 2001(6) SCC 338.”
This Court also in specific terms held that :
“the condition laid down under section 437(1)(i) is sine qua non for granting
bail even under section 439 of the Code. In the impugned order it is noticed
that the High Court has given the period of incarceration already undergone
by the accused and the unlikelihood of trial concluding in the near future as
grounds sufficient to enlarge the accused on bail, in spite of the fact that the
accused stands charged of offences punishable with life imprisonment or
even death penalty. In such cases, in our opinion, the mere fact that the
accused has undergone certain period of incarceration (three years in this
case) by itself would not entitle the acc
accused to being enlarged on bail, nor
the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future either by
itself or coupled with the period of incarceration would be sufficient for
enlarging the appellant on bail when the gravity of the offenc
offencee alleged is
severe and there are allegations of tampering with the witnesses by the
accused during the period he was on bail.”
In Panchanan Mishra v. Digambar Mishra, 2005(1) Apex Criminal 319
: 2005(1) RCR(Criminal) 712 (SC) : 2005(3) SCC 143, this Court
observed :
“The object underlying the cancellation of bail is to protect the fair trial
and secure justice being done to the society by preventing the accused
who is set at liberty by the bail order from tampering with the evidence in
the heinous crime….. It hardly requires to be stated that once a person is
released on bail in serious criminal cases where the punishment is quite
stringent and deterrent, the accused in order to get away from the
clutches of the same indulge in various activi
activities like tampering with the
prosecution witnesses, threatening the family members of the deceased
victim and also create problems of law and order situation.”
8. Indubitably, the petitioner and the co
co-accused
accused were found
together at the same place and time. At the outset, it is to be noted that
AJAY KUMAR
2026.05.06 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M–3391-2026 11
commercial quantity of heroin has been recovered in the present case. The
petitioner has been apprehended at the spot alon
alongwith co-accused
accused persons
pursuant to prior secret information. Though no narcotic substance has been
recovered from the petitioner but the material on record prima facie reflects
that he was accompanying the co-accused
co accused who were found in conscious
possession
on of the commercial quantity of heroin. The recovery of a firearm
i.e. a Glock pistol, from the petitioner cannot be brushed aside and lends
credence to the allegation of the prosecution of a larger criminal conspiracy.
At this stage, the allegations indicate
indicate that the petitioner was an active
participant in the alleged offence. At the stage of consideration of plea for
grant of regular bail, the Court is not expected to conduct a detailed
examination of evidence. The material collected by the investigating
investigati
agency, including the secret information and the recovery, prima facie
suggests that the petitioner was involved of guilty of offence under the
NDPS Act. In order to grant bail, the Court must be satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that
that the accused is not guilty of the offence
and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. From the
material available on record, the allegations against the petitioner point
toward his active participation in a serious and well
well-organized criminal
riminal
network.
9. As regards the plea of prolonged incarceration, nothing has
been brought forward before this Court to form an opinion that the statutory
embargo contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not be applicable
to the instant case. It would be apposite to refer herein to the judgment
AJAY KUMAR
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.)No.5020-2026 titled as
2026.05.06 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M–3391-2026 12
State of Punjab vs. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora, wherein it has been
categorically held that in cases involving recovery of commercial qua
quantity
ntity
of contraband, the twin conditions as envisaged under Section 37 of the
NDPS Act are required to be mandatorily satisfied before the concession of
bail is to be granted. Mere prolonged incarceration by itself cannot be a
ground for grant of bail. Thee relevant whereof reads thus:
“9. It is well-settled
settled that in matters involving recovery of contraband in
commercial quantity, the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the
NDPS Act are mandatoryy and entail no relaxation merely on the ground
that the accused has undergone prolonged incarceration during the
pendency of trial. The provision casts upon the Court a duty to record,
before enlarging an accused on bail, its satisfaction on two cumulative
cumulativ
conditions, first, that there exist reasonable grounds for believing that the
accused is not guilty of the offence charged; and second, that he is not
likely to commit any offence while on bail. The recording of such
satisfaction is not a mere formality but a mandatory pre-condition,
condition, the
non-observance
observance of which vitiates the grant of bail. This Court, in Kashif
(supra), has held in no uncertain terms that the recording of satisfaction
on the twin conditions under Section 37 is mandatory and not merely
directory, and that an order granting bail without such recorded
satisfaction stands vitiated and cannot be sustained. The same view stands
reiterated in Lalrintluanga Sailo (supra).
10. The impugned order, on its own showing, does not record the
satisfaction mandated under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. Far
from recording such satisfaction, the High Court has gone on to observe
that ‘the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted bearing in
mind the right to a speedy trial.’ Such an approach is plainly contrary to
the settled law laid down by this Court and deserves to be set aside on this
ground
round alone. The right to speedy trial, rooted in Article 21 of the
Constitution, is undoubtedly a precious Constitutional right. That said, in
matters governed by a special enactment such as the NDPS Act,
Act
particularly where the recovery is of commercial quantity, the said right
under Article 21 must be exercised within the framework of Section
37 and cannot be pressed into service solely on the ground of delay to
override it. The constitutional right under Article 21 and the special
AJAY KUMAR
2026.05.06 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and provision of law under Section 37
37,, NDPS Act are to be read harmoniously
integrity of this document
CRM-M–3391-2026 13and not placed in opposition to each other. The High Court, by failing to
record its satisfaction on the twin conditions under Section 37,, has in this
Court’s view, committed an error.”
10. In view of the seriousness of the allegations coupled with the
nature of the offence, the role attributed to the petitioner & the statutory bar
under the NDPS Act, thiss Court is of the considered opinion that the
petitioner is not entitled to the concession of regular bail in the factual
milieu of the case in hand.
11. In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus:
(i) The present petition is devoid ooff merit and is hereby dismissed.
(ii) Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove
shall not have any effect on merits of the case and the investigating agency
as also the trial Court shall proceed further, in accordance with law, without
being influenced with this order.
(iii) Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
May 06, 2026
202
Ajay
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
AJAY KUMAR
2026.05.06 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
