STATE OF PUNJAB vs GURJIT SINGH @ GEETU — Crl.A. No. 2144/2026

Case under 1504Cb-criminal Law : Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985(Matters Filed for Cancellation of Bail/challenging Grant of Regular Bail or Anticipatory Bail) Section II-B. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010163122026

Filing Date

16-Mar-2026

Registration No

Crl.A. No. 2144/2026

Diary Number

16312/2026

Order Date

24-Apr-2026

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Leave Granted & Allowed

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

1504CB-Criminal Law : Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985(Matters filed for Cancellation of Bail/challenging grant of regular bail or anticipatory bail) Section II-B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

    Adv. KARAN SHARMA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.GURJIT SINGH @ GEETU

    Adv. VANYA GUPTA [R-1]

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Apr-2026

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih

  3. 16-Apr-2026

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih

  4. 09-Apr-2026

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

  5. 07-Apr-2026

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

  6. 25-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 16-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. Crl.A. No. 2144/2026

  8. [ 2026 INSC 411 ]

    Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF

Common Record of Proceedings — heard with connected matters

Lead case: Crl.A. No. 2143/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Crl.A. No. 002144/2026 The Supreme Court of India set aside the High Court's bail order granting regular bail to Gurjit Singh @ Geetu in a commercial quantity NDPS case. The Court found the High Court failed to record mandatory satisfaction under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act and instead improperly attempted to dilute statutory requirements citing the right to speedy trial. The Court directed the respondent to surrender before the Trial Court within one week, with liberty to apply afresh for bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case