Court holds petitioner misused official position to protect commercial quantities of narcotics; stringent conditions under Section 37 of NDPS Act not met despite prolonged custody
In a recent judgment dated September 10, 2026, the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, comprising Justices Anoop Chitkara and Harmeet Singh Deol, dismissed the bail plea of Sarabjit Singh, a former Sub-Inspector of the Punjab Police, who was accused of actively facilitating an organized drug trafficking syndicate. The petitioner was alleged to have abused his official position by providing protection to vehicles transporting commercial quantities of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, including Methamphetamine (Ice) and Pseudoephedrine, by ensuring their safe passage through police checkpoints and barricades.
The case pertains to FIR No. 56 registered on May 15, 2013, at Banur Police Station, Mohali. The investigation, initially led by the local police and later transferred to the Crime Investigation Agency (CIA) in Patiala, revealed a sprawling drug trafficking network headed by Jagdish Singh alias Bhola. Sarabjit Singh was named as an accused in the case and was arrested in February 2022 after being declared a proclaimed offender in 2013 due to absconding.
The Court took note that the petitioner had been in custody for over four years and six months. Despite the prolonged pre-trial custody, the Bench emphasized that such detention alone would not justify bail, especially considering the gravity of the offense, the commercial quantity of contraband involved, and the petitioner's role in facilitating the crime. The petitioner's bail application was examined in light of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), which imposes stringent conditions for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities of drugs.
The Court reiterated the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act: first, the Public Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the bail application; second, if opposed, the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offense while on bail. The Bench held that these conditions had not been satisfied by the petitioner, particularly given the prima facie evidence indicating his complicity and misuse of official power. The Court also rejected the petitioner's claim for bail on the ground of parity with co-accused who had been acquitted, noting that the roles and evidence against the petitioner were distinct and more serious.
While acknowledging the petitioner's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court urged the trial court to expedite the proceedings as a priority, given the large quantities of contraband involved and the public interest. However, the Court clarified that its observations were tentative and would not prejudice the trial's merits or the rights of the parties involved.
Ultimately, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the bail petition, underscoring the need to balance individual liberty with the imperative to combat serious organized crime involving narcotic drugs.
Bottom Line:
NDPS Act - Bail under Section 37 - The petitioner accused of actively facilitating an organized drug trafficking syndicate, misusing official position as a police officer to protect drug transport, and involvement with commercial quantities of contraband - Rigorous twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act not satisfied - Prolonged custody alone insufficient to grant bail in light of gravity of offense and petitioner's role.
Statutory provision(s):
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 37, Indian Penal Code Sections 379, 411, 468, 471, 473, 120-B, Arms Act Sections 25, 54, 59, Constitution of India Article 21
Sarabjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (Punjab And Haryana)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2976848
