Landmark Bail Decision in NDPS Case: Upholding Justice and Constitutional Rights

-
As a practicing advocate at the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court, I am pleased to share insights from a significant recent judgment by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rohit Sharma Alias Raju v. State of Punjab (2025 NCPHHC 61133). This case underscores the judiciary’s commitment to balancing legal rigor with constitutional protections, particularly under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.In this case, the petitioner, accused under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985, for possessing a commercial quantity of Tramadol tablets, sought regular bail after nearly three years in custody. The court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil, granted bail, emphasizing that “bail is the rule and incarceration the exception.” Key factors influencing the decision included the petitioner’s lack of prior criminal history, the prolonged custody period (2 years, 11 months, and 3 days), and the anticipated delay in trial completion, with only 3 of 16 prosecution witnesses examined. The judgment reaffirmed the right to a speedy trial as integral “‘to a reasonable, fair, and just procedure”* under Article 21, drawing on precedents like Dataram v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) and Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2024).This ruling is a testament to the judiciary’s role in safeguarding individual liberty while ensuring justice. It highlights the importance of judicial discretion in bail matters, prioritizing humane treatment and constitutional guarantees over prolonged detention.For legal consultations or to discuss this case further, feel free to reach out:
📧 Email: advocateganeshmishra@gmail.com
🌐 Website: advocateganeshmishra.in
📱 Mobile: +91-9136273395Let’s continue to uphold justice and protect constitutional rights together!#Law #Bail #NDPS #Article21 #Justice #IndianJudiciary
I am a practicing advocate at the Supreme Court of India and the Delhi High Court. Your comments & suggestion are most welcome. Write me advocateganeshmishra@gmail.com or WA https://wa.me/919136273395?text=Hi

Comments

  1. M & Co.17 July 2025 at 13:48

    An excellent breakdown of this landmark bail decision in the NDPS case! The detailed analysis sheds light on how judicial discretion is applied under stringent narcotics laws. This ruling sets a critical precedent for balancing individual rights with public interest. For anyone navigating similar challenges, connecting with reputable litigation law firms in delhi could be invaluable—they bring the experience and insight needed to effectively advocate in high-stakes criminal matters. Kudos to Advocate Ganesh Mishra for spotlighting such a nuanced and pivotal judgment!

    ReplyDelete
  2. humanelevation14 October 2025 at 18:16

    A truly illuminating analysis of this Landmark Bail Decision in the NDPS case. The way you’ve traced the court’s reasoning — balancing constitutional rights, delay in trial, and the presumption of liberty — offers great value to practitioners and clients alike. Comments like “bail is the rule, incarceration the exception” really resonate when seen in real-case context.

    In today’s legal climate, understanding such judgments is vital for anyone seeking legal consultancy services in india. This sort of in-depth discussion helps clients and lawyers appreciate how high courts interpret NDPS and bail jurisprudence — especially when stakes are so high. Kudos to you, Advocate Ganesh Mishra, for making this accessible and insightful.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Are Major Indian Universities Named After Nehru and Indira Gandhi?

-
Image
Questioning the Naming of National Institutions It is worth reflecting on why some of India’s most prominent universities, such as Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), bear the names of these political leaders. The academic credentials of Jawaharlal Nehru, while respectable, were not extraordinary. Nehru studied at Harrow and Trinity College, Cambridge, earning an honours degree in natural science, and later qualified as a barrister in London, passing his exams “with neither glory nor ignominy”[1][4]. His educational journey, though privileged, did not set him apart as a scholar of exceptional distinction. Indira Gandhi, despite her influential role in Indian politics, did not complete a university degree. This stands in stark contrast to many young men and women from less privileged backgrounds across India who, despite significant hardships, manage to complete their graduation and post-graduation[6][9]. Whom Should We Celebrate in Acad...
Read more

The Untold Story of J&K’s Accession – Facts Beyond the Textbooks

-
Image
  By Advocate Ganesh Mishra,                                Founder, Mishra and Associates,  New Delhi advocateganeshmishra@gmail.com www.advocateganeshmishra.in Mob +91-9136273395 Introduction The accession of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) to India in 1947 remains one of the most significant and debated chapters in Indian history. While official narratives have often focused on the events following the Pakistani tribal invasion, a closer look at historical records and testimonies reveals a more nuanced story-one that challenges many popular perceptions and raises important questions about political decisions at the highest level. The Maharaja’s Dilemma and Early Steps Toward India Maharaja Hari Singh, the ruler of J&K, faced a complex situation in the months leading up to independence. With partition violence raging and his state’s Muslim-majority demography, he initially sough...
Read more

You May Lose Your Cheque Bounce Case If Your Legal Notice Is Defective: Supreme Court’s Clear Warning

-
Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Omnibus Demand Notices Under Section 138 NI Act: What Cheque Dishonour Victims Must Know In a significant judgment dated December 12, 2023, the Supreme Court of India in Upasana Mishra v. Trek Technology India Pvt. Ltd. (Criminal Appeal No. 3786 of 2023) has clarified the legal requirements for demand notices under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. This ruling is a crucial development for anyone who has faced the frustration and financial loss caused by cheque dishonour. Facts of the Case The appellant, Ms. Upasana Mishra, issued a legal demand notice to the respondent company after a cheque was dishonoured. The notice demanded a lump sum amount of ₹6,50,000 which included: - The cheque amount (not specifically stated), - Interest at 12% per annum from the date of dishonour, - Damages of ₹50,000 per month, - Notice charges of ₹5,500. The notice did not clearly specify the exact cheque amount separately but made an omnibus demand com...
Read more