Legal Analysis: State of Punjab vs Balraj Singh @ Billa

Citation: 2026 INSC 618

Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)

Bench: A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol & Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Date of Decision: June 02, 2026

Nature of Judgment: Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 896 of 2026 against the judgment and order dated 15.10.2025 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M No. 46383 of 2025.

Synopsis of the Judgment

The respondent, Balraj Singh @ Billa, was arraigned as an accused in connection with FIR No. 06 dated 10.01.2024 registered under Section 21(c)/29/61 and 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), involving recovery of 1.465 Kg of heroin (commercial quantity) from co-accused persons. The respondent’s role emerged from the disclosure statement of co-accused that he was operating a drug trafficking network from inside jail using illegal mobile phones. The Special Court rejected his bail application. However, the High Court granted regular bail, observing that antecedents alone cannot be the basis for refusal and relying on the period of custody and likelihood of trial taking considerable time. The Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeal, holding that the High Court had completely ignored the mandatory twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which require the court to record satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The Court noted that the case involved commercial quantity, the respondent had three antecedents of similar nature, and incarceration of 1 year 7 months did not constitute prolonged incarceration warranting bail. The impugned order was set aside, and the respondent was directed to remain in custody.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Case Title: State of Punjab v. Balraj Singh @ Billa

Citation: 2026 INSC 618

Criminal Appeal No.: Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 896 of 2026

Bench: Division Bench (Justice Sanjay Karol & Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh)

Date of Decision: June 02, 2026

Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)

Impugned Order: Judgment and order dated 15.10.2025 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M No. 46383 of 2025 granting regular bail to the respondent.

2. Legal Framework

Major Laws and Provisions Involved

• Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Section 21(c) (punishment for commercial quantity of heroin/diacetylmorphine), Section 29 (abetment and criminal conspiracy), Section 37 (offences to be cognizable and non-bailable – twin conditions for grant of bail), Section 61 (confiscation), Section 85 (liability of persons who knowingly allow premises to be used for commission of offence).

• Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 483 (provisions for bail – analogous to former CrPC).

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty, including right to speedy trial and protection against prolonged incarceration).

Key Precedents Cited and Applied

• State of Meghalaya v. Lalrintluanga Sailo & Anr. (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1236) – Held that consideration of twin conditions under Section 37 of NDPS Act is essential; recording a finding mandated under Section 37 is sine qua non for granting bail; liberal approach ignoring the mandate is impermissible.

• Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh (2024 SCC OnLine SC 789) – Reiterated that satisfaction of conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) is mandatory in cases involving commercial quantity.

• Collector of Customs v. Ahmadalieva Nodira (2004) 3 SCC 549 (Three-Judge Bench) – Held that "reasonable grounds" under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) means something more than prima facie grounds; it contemplates substantial and probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty.

• State by the Inspector of Police v. B. Ramu (2024 SCC OnLine SC 432) – Reiterated that satisfaction of conditions under Section 37 is mandatory while entertaining bail prayer involving commercial quantity.

• Union of India v. Namdeo Ashruba Nakade (2025 SCC OnLine SC 3049) – Observed that mandatory nature of Section 37 cannot be dispensed with; when accused faces punishment of ten to twenty years rigorous imprisonment, it cannot be said that incarceration is unreasonably long.

• Ashok Dhankad v. State NCT of Delhi (2024 SCC OnLine SC 456) – Recognised that appeal against grant of bail and application for cancellation of bail stand on different footings.

• Harpreet Sing

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.