Supreme Court Allows Withdrawal Of NDPS Bail Plea After Remark On Accused’s “Glorious History”
Supreme Court declines to interfere in eviction dispute between father and son under Senior Citizens Act
The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the withdrawal of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by an accused seeking regular bail in a 2015 NDPS and Arms Act case, after making pointed observations on the petitioner’s criminal background during the hearing.
The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice V Mohana was hearing the plea arising from a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated March 5, 2026, which had refused bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 233 of 2015 registered at Police Station Sadar Tarn Taran under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, Sections 307, 399, 402 IPC, and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner informed the Court that the accused had been in custody for “about 3 years 11 months and 19 days.”
Justice Vikram Nath responded sharply, remarking, “You have a glorious history.”
The counsel submitted that the petitioner had multiple pending cases and was already on bail in most of them.
To this, Justice Nath observed, “He is on bail, very good. So, now there is no need for you to come out at all.”
Following the exchange, the petitioner’s counsel sought permission to withdraw the Special Leave Petition, which was allowed by the Court.
The SLP was filed through AoR Disha Singh.
The petitioner, Sajjan alias Piddhi had challenged the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s refusal to grant regular bail in a case alleging involvement in unlawful assembly, dacoity planning, and narcotics-related offences.
According to the prosecution, the petitioner was linked to an alleged conspiracy involving drug smuggling and armed crime. However, the defence argued that no narcotic substance was recovered from the petitioner’s possession. It was further contended that recovery attributed to the petitioner was limited to a .315 bore pistol, cartridges, and cash, while the main recovery of 2 kg heroin and other incriminating material was shown from a co-accused.
The plea also argued that the case was based largely on disclosure statements of co-accused, which do not constitute substantive evidence, and that the petitioner was entitled to parity as co-accused had already been granted bail.
Despite these submissions, the Supreme Court was not inclined to interfere, leading to the withdrawal of the petition.
Case Title: Sajjan alias Piddhi v. State of Punjab
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and V. Mohana
Hearing Date: June 3, 2026