The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused regular bail to a man accused of possessing over 109 kg of ganja, holding that the gravity of the recovery attracted the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and that prolonged custody alone could not dilute it.

Justice Sumeet Goel, dismissing the petitioner's fourth bail plea, observed that where the recovery falls within commercial quantity, "the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are squarely attracted."

The petitioner, Sunder Singh, was booked in an FIR dated October 24, 2025, registered at Police Station Hodal, District Palwal, under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 29, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act, for the alleged recovery of 109 kg 856 grams of ganja patti. His three earlier bail pleas had been dismissed as withdrawn.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that he had been falsely implicated, that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act had not been complied with, and that he had been in custody for over 11 months. It was submitted that the challan was presented on December 27, 2025, and only 3 of the 18 prosecution witnesses had been examined, with the delay in trial not attributable to him.

The State opposed the plea, citing the huge quantity of contraband and contending that the petition did not meet the rigours of Section 37. It also argued that the petitioner, if released, was likely to abscond and interfere with witnesses.

The High Court referred to three recent Supreme Court decisions: Union of India v. Namdeo Ashruba Nakade, Union of India v. Vigin K. Varghese and State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora. Relying on Sukhwinder Singh, the Court noted the Supreme Court's holding that the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) are mandatory and admit no relaxation merely because the accused has undergone prolonged incarceration.

The Supreme Court had held that the right to speedy trial 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."

Applying these principles, Justice Goel held that the nature of the allegations and the quantity recovered disentitled the petitioner to bail, and that no exceptional circumstances had been made out. The plea of false implication was rejected as resting on "bald assertions, unsupported by any cogent material."

On the Section 37 threshold, the Court observed, "In the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly having regard to the magnitude of the alleged recovery, this Court, at this stage, does not find any material sufficient to record such satisfaction. Consequently, the statutory embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act operates against the grant of regular bail to the petitioner."

Noting that charges were framed on April 1, 2026, and that only 3 of 18 witnesses had been examined, the Court held that "no cause nay plausible cause" had been made out to meet the rigours of Section 37, and dismissed the petition. It clarified that its observations would not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits.

Case Title: Sunder Singh v. State of Haryana

Appearance: Mr. R. Krishnaamorthi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Priyanka Sadar Thakur, Senior DAG, Haryana.

Click here to read order