Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case

"The rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act remain inviolable where commercial quantity and serious allegations are involved — long incarceration and health ailments are not enough," Punjab and Haryana High Court regular bail to four individuals accused in a narcotics case involving the alleged seizure of 710 kg of poppy husk from a vehicle in Sangrur. Justice Sumeet Goel, while deciding four connected petitions under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concluded that the petitioners had failed to cross the mandatory statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

In the Court’s firm observation, “The allegations pertain to an organised drug operation involving a commercial quantity of contraband. This Court cannot be persuaded merely on the basis of custody duration or mild medical ailments when the law imposes a strict threshold for release.”

"Disclosure statements alone cannot dismantle Section 37": Court refuses bail to co-accused named by others

The petitioners — Gurjeet Singh @ Bhura Fauji, Satguru Singh, Lali Singh, and Jagtar @ Kari — were arrested in connection with FIR No. 83 dated 10.06.2024 under Sections 15, 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act. While Gurjeet and Satguru were apprehended on the spot from a Brezza vehicle carrying 710 kg of poppy husk, the other two — Lali and Jagtar — were named only through disclosure statements made by co-accused during investigation.

The petitioners contended that their continued incarceration — about 1.5 years for Gurjeet and Satguru, and over 8 months for Lali and Jagtar — amounted to a violation of their right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. They further claimed that the prosecution relied on legally weak disclosure statements and had failed to comply with mandatory procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act.

On the other hand, the State opposed bail, citing serious allegations, the commercial nature of the contraband, and prior criminal antecedents of two petitioners. The State placed on record custody certificates dated November 26 and 27, 2025, showing that Gurjeet and Satguru were already facing prosecution in other FIRs.

Justice Goel dismissed the contention that disclosure-based implication alone weakened the case, stating, “At the bail stage, especially where commercial quantity is involved, the Court is not to conduct a mini-trial. The disclosure statements cannot be examined in isolation when there is seizure of such magnitude supported by broader material indicating an organised chain.”

"Article 21 cannot override statutory command of Section 37 NDPS": High Court relies on Supreme Court’s guidance on drug menace

The Court relied extensively on recent Supreme Court decisions in Union of India vs. Namdeo Ashruba Nakade and Union of India vs. Vigin K. Varghese, where the Apex Court cautioned against dilution of Section 37 merely on grounds of long incarceration or absence of antecedents. Quoting from Namdeo Ashruba Nakade, Justice Goel reminded that “substance abuse is not merely a personal tragedy, but a national crisis impacting public health, social stability and even national security.”

In light of this, the Court found no exceptional ground warranting departure from the statutory mandate. “It cannot be said that 1.5 years of incarceration, in a case punishable with 10–20 years’ rigorous imprisonment, is unreasonably long,” the judge observed.

The Court further reaffirmed its own precedent in Jaswinder Singh @ Kala vs. State of Punjab, noting that “the twin conditions of Section 37(1)(b) are cumulative — not alternative — and must be satisfied concurrently before bail can be granted.”

"Medical condition not life-threatening; treatment available in jail": Court rejects bail on health grounds

One of the petitioners, Jagtar Singh @ Kari, invoked medical grounds for bail, submitting that he had a chronic osteomyelitis condition from a leg fracture sustained 27 years ago. A medical board report indicated he walked with a limp and required regular dressing and antibiotics but no surgery.

The Court categorically rejected this ground, stating, “The petitioner is ambulatory and the condition is neither serious nor life-threatening. There is no immediate surgical requirement, and necessary medical care is feasible within jail premises.”

"Clean record alone is not enough where commercial quantity is involved": Court distinguishes between antecedents and nature of offence

Although Lali and Jagtar had no prior FIRs, the Court clarified that this did not entitle them to bail. “Antecedents may influence the Court’s view on likelihood of reoffending, but when the first limb of Section 37 — that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty — is not satisfied, clean antecedents alone do not suffice,” the Court ruled.

In contrast, Gurjeet and Satguru were found to be involved in other criminal cases. “This only reinforces the apprehension that they are likely to commit similar offences while on bail,” said the Court.

Bail Denied to All Petitioners

Justice Goel ultimately dismissed all four petitions, holding that the allegations involved a commercial quantity, that there were no compelling grounds to override Section 37, and that neither long incarceration nor health nor clean antecedents could tip the balance.

“The magnitude of the seizure and the overall material on record raise serious prima facie concerns about the involvement of the accused in an organised drug operation,” the Court concluded, directing that the trial proceed uninfluenced by observations in the bail order.

“The petitions deserve to be dismissed in view of the failure to meet the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act, and the same are ordered accordingly.”

Date of Decision: November 28, 2025