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 examine...