Photo: Subhashish Panigrahi via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)
Judgment Intelligence
Bail GrantedNishant Pal v. State of Haryana
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 12970 of 2026
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 1 October 2026
- Bench
- Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Palli
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 20 and 37; Constitution of India – Article 21
Final Outcome
Special leave petition disposed of. The petitioner is to be enlarged on bail subject to the satisfaction of the trial court in the case arising from FIR No. 150 of 2025; pending applications disposed of (paras 6-8).
Key holdings
- The period already spent in custody and the time the trial is likely to take were weighed in favour of bail (para 5).
- The Court kept in mind both Article 21 and the principle of Section 37 of the NDPS Act (para 5).
- Bail conditions were left to the satisfaction of the trial court (para 6).
Brief Facts
The petitioner is accused in FIR No. 150 dated 05.06.2025 at Sarai Khwaja, District Faridabad, Haryana, for an offence under Section 20 of the NDPS Act (para 2). The High Court of Punjab and Haryana refused him bail on 18.05.2026 in CRM-M No. 19556/2026, and he challenged that order by special leave petition (para 2). His counsel submitted that he had been in custody for about one year and four months, that the alleged contraband was 27 kg of ganja-patti, that he had no criminal antecedents and that no witness had been examined since charges were framed (para 3). The State's Additional Advocate General opposed bail (para 4).
Court's Findings
In a single paragraph, the Court listed the considerations that led it to grant bail: the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the period the petitioner had already spent in custody, and the time the trial was likely to take to conclude (para 5). It recorded that it was keeping in mind both the principle enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution and the principle of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and on that footing was inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail (para 5). The order does not record findings on the quantity of the contraband or on the twin conditions of Section 37, and it cites no precedent. The Court directed that the petitioner be released on bail subject to the satisfaction of the trial court in the case arising from the FIR, and disposed of the petition and pending applications (paras 6-8).
Legal Principle
The order lays down no detailed rule. It shows the Court weighing the period in custody and the likely length of the trial, read with Article 21, alongside the principle of Section 37 of the NDPS Act when granting bail in an NDPS case (para 5).