Sovereignty Prevails Over Personal Liberty When Nation Is Threatened By Drug Trade: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside regular bail granted to an accused in a heroin trafficking case, observing that sovereignty of the country must prevail over personal liberty, particularly in cases involving the supply of drugs, which affect public health and the national economy.

“Should there be any conflict between the sovereignty of country and personal liberty, undoubtedly, the former shall prevail, particularly, when a war is waged against the nation, be it in the form of supply of drugs, which vitally affects the national economy and health of the people”, the Court said.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh observed that the High Court failed to consider the mandatory twin conditions under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which govern the grant of bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotic substances.

Under Section 37, in order to grant bail, the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

The Court allowed an appeal filed by the State of Punjab against the High Court's October 15, 2025 order releasing Balraj Singh alias Billa on bail. The Court held that the High Court had not examined whether the statutory requirements under Section 37 were satisfied before granting relief.

The accused was booked under Sections 21(c), 29, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act after police allegedly recovered 1.465 kilograms of heroin from two persons travelling in a Mahindra XUV 300 near Village Veeram in Punjab.

According to the prosecution, the two accused disclosed during investigation that Balraj Singh, who was lodged in Central Jail, Goindwal Sahib, had instructed them to collect the heroin and keep it for further supply. They also alleged that he was operating a drug trafficking network from inside the jail using illegal mobile phones.

The Special Court at Tarn Taran rejected Balraj Singh's bail plea on July 3, 2025. However, the High Court subsequently granted him bail, observing that criminal antecedents alone could not justify refusal of bail and noting the period of custody and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of the trial.

Before the Supreme Court, the State argued that the High Court had ignored the bar contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act despite the case involving a commercial quantity of heroin. It also pointed out that the accused had three criminal antecedents of a similar nature.

The accused contended that he had been falsely implicated, no recovery was made from him, and he had already spent one year and seven months in custody while only two of the twenty-four prosecution witnesses had been examined.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court reiterated that in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotic drugs, courts must record satisfaction regarding the twin conditions under Section 37 before granting bail.

The Supreme Court found that in the present case, the High Court had not considered the twin conditions at all. It further held that the respondent's criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act meant it could not be said that he was unlikely to commit a similar offence while on bail.

The Court also rejected the argument based on prolonged incarceration. It noted that the accused had spent only one year and seven months in custody and faced a possible sentence of up to twenty years if convicted. Therefore, the period of custody could not be regarded as so long as to justify bail on the ground of violation of Article 21, the Court held.

At the same time, the Court highlighted that the law remains unsettled on what constitutes “prolonged incarceration” for the purpose of granting bail. The Court noted that different benches have reached differing outcomes in NDPS cases involving similar periods of custody.

It highlighted the recent reference made in Tasleem Ahmed v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi concerning the approach of constitutional courts in bail matters under special statutes where “Article 21, prolonged incarceration and statutory restrictions intersect.”

“While judicial discretion is an important facet of justice dispensation, this Court cannot overlook the fact that similarly situated persons in custody may receive different outcomes, dependent on the approach adopted by the respective bench”, the Court observed.

The Court recorded a chart submitted by Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat drawing attention to divergent outcomes in earlier NDPS cases involving comparable periods of custody.

However, in view of the pending reference, it declined to examine the issue further. Ultimately, the Court set aside the High Court's order granting bail and allowed the State's appeal.

Case no. – Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 896 of 2026

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

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 590