The practice of parading accused persons before the media and public has emerged as a deeply troubling phenomenon within India’s criminal justice system. This practice represents a stark departure from constitutional principles and established jurisprudence that safeguard the dignity and presumption of innocence of every individual. The recent ruling by the Rajasthan High Court in Islam Khan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [1], decided on January 20, 2026, has brought renewed attention to this issue. The court’s order addresses the systematic violation of fundamental rights through the public exhibition of accused persons, often before any determination of guilt by a competent court.

This practice manifests in various forms across Indian states, particularly in Rajasthan, where accused individuals are frequently made to sit on police station floors during press briefings, paraded through public streets, subjected to public humiliation including being garlanded with shoes, having their heads forcibly shaved, or being compelled to wear women’s clothing as a form of gendered degradation. These acts occur while the legal presumption of innocence remains intact, transforming arrest itself into a form of punishment that operates entirely outside the framework of law.

The Constitutional Framework: Presumption of Innocence and Dignity

The Indian Constitution provides robust protections for personal liberty and human dignity through multiple provisions. Article 21 of the Constitution stands as the cornerstone of these protections, stating clearly that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” [2] This fundamental right has been interpreted expansively by Indian courts to encompass not merely physical existence but the right to live with human dignity. The Supreme Court has consistently held that dignity forms an essential and inseparable component of the right to life, and any state action that degrades or humiliates an individual violates this constitutional guarantee.

The distinction between an accused person and a convicted person represents a foundational principle of criminal jurisprudence. An accused remains legally innocent until proven guilty through due process before a competent court. This presumption of innocence operates as a shield against premature condemnation and ensures that the burden of proving guilt rests entirely upon the prosecution. The practice of parading accused persons fundamentally undermines this principle by treating individuals as if their guilt has already been established, thereby usurping the judicial function and converting police custody into a theater of public condemnation.

Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws, providing that “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” [3] When police authorities subject accused persons to degrading treatment through public exhibition, they act arbitrarily and without legal sanction, violating the principle of equality. Such arbitrary exercise of power directly contravenes Article 14, which prohibits the state from acting in a capricious or unreasonable manner toward any individual, regardless of whether they stand accused of an offense.

Furthermore, Article 20(2) of the Constitution embodies the principle against double jeopardy, stating that “No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.” [4] While this provision traditionally addresses formal legal proceedings, the public humiliation inflicted upon accused persons by police constitutes an extra-legal punishment. When an individual is later convicted by a court and sentenced, they have effectively been punished twice – first through the irreversible public shaming orchestrated by police, and second through the judicial sentence.

The Landmark Judgment: Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration

The foundational case addressing the treatment of accused persons and the limits of police power remains Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration [5], decided by the Supreme Court on April 29, 1980. In this landmark judgment, the Court addressed the practice of handcuffing undertrial prisoners during their transit between jail and court. The petitioner, an undertrial prisoner at Tihar Jail, challenged the routine practice of being transported in handcuffs, arguing that such treatment violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.

Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, writing for the Court, delivered a judgment that has profoundly shaped the law on prisoners’ rights and the treatment of accused persons. The Court held that handcuffing is prima facie inhuman and therefore unreasonable, declaring it over-harsh and arbitrary unless justified by clear and compelling circumstances. The judgment emphasized that “to manacle a man is more than to mortify him; it is to dehumanize him and therefore to violate his very personhood.”

The Court established that the only circumstance validating the use of restraints is when there exists no other reasonable way of preventing escape in the given circumstances. Routine handcuffing, based merely on administrative convenience or the seriousness of the charges, was declared unconstitutional. The judgment further condemned the classification of prisoners into “better class” and “ordinary” categories for purposes of determining whether to apply handcuffs, declaring such classification arbitrary, irrational, and violative of Article 14. The principles laid down in Prem Shankar Shukla apply with equal force to the practice of parading accused persons before the public and media.

Judicial Protection of Prisoners’ Rights: Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration

The Supreme Court’s commitment to protecting the dignity of persons in custody received further elaboration in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration [6], decided on December 20, 1979. This case arose from a letter written by a prisoner to a Supreme Court judge, alleging that prison authorities had tortured another inmate by inserting a rod into his anus to extort money. The Supreme Court treated this letter as a writ petition and initiated proceedings to investigate the allegations.

The judgment categorically rejected the “hands-off” doctrine that had previously insulated prison administration from judicial scrutiny. Justice Krishna Iyer, again writing for the Court, held that fundamental rights do not abandon a person at the prison gates. While these rights may undergo reasonable restrictions necessitated by incarceration, they do not disappear entirely. The Court emphasized that persons in custody remain persons under the Constitution, entitled to the protection of fundamental rights including the right to dignity under Article 21.

The Sunil Batra judgment established detailed guidelines for prison administration, emphasizing that prisoners must be treated with humanity and respect for their inherent dignity. The Court drew upon international instruments including Article 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides that “All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.” These principles extend beyond the walls of prisons to encompass all persons in police custody.

The Rajasthan High Court’s Intervention in Islam Khan

The recent order of the Rajasthan High Court in Islam Khan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. represents a crucial judicial intervention against the practice of public exhibition of accused persons. The case came before the Court in the context of disturbing reports and instances where accused persons were compelled to sit on police station floors during press briefings, sometimes in partially disrobed conditions, with their photographs and videos widely circulated across social media and news platforms.

The Court characterized this practice as “institutional humiliation” and held that it strikes at the very root of constitutional morality and the rule of law. The judgment emphasized that an accused person is not a convict, and that constitutional protections do not evaporate upon arrest. Public exhibition prior to adjudication, the Court observed, undermines the presumption of innocence that forms the bedrock of criminal justice. The Court reminded law enforcement authorities that their investigative powers do not extend to public exhibition and humiliation of accused persons.

The Systemic Nature of the Problem in Rajasthan

Documentation by civil society organizations reveals that the practice of parading accused persons in public has become systematic and normalized in Rajasthan over the past years [7]. This is not the sporadic misconduct of individual officers but rather a defiant, organized practice that continues despite clear legal prohibitions. The evidence compiled shows accused persons being marched through streets with visible injuries, forced to apologize on camera, made to crawl on roads, and subjected to various forms of gendered and caste-based humiliation.

This practice persists in open defiance of advisories from the Ministry of Home Affairs and circulars issued by the Rajasthan Director General of Police forbidding these very acts [9]. The performative nature of these public exhibitions reveals their true purpose. They are not investigative techniques but rather spectacles designed to inflict humiliation, satisfy public anger, and enact summary punishment without trial.

Legal Violations and International Standards

The practice of parading accused persons in public violates multiple layers of legal protection. Beyond constitutional provisions, it contravenes principles established in the Code of Criminal Procedure, which governs the conduct of criminal investigations and trials. India is also bound by international human rights standards to which it is a signatory. Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

The Impact on the Presumption of Innocence

The presumption of innocence operates as more than a courtroom technicality; it represents a foundational principle of criminal justice that protects individuals from the awesome power of the state. When police parade accused persons before media and public, they effectively declare these individuals guilty without trial. The visual images of accused persons in custody create a powerful impression of culpability in the public mind that no subsequent acquittal can fully erase.

Conclusion

The practice of parading accused persons before the public and media represents a fundamental betrayal of constitutional values and the rule of law. The Rajasthan High Court’s order in Islam Khan serves as a timely reminder that constitutional discipline must guide executive action. A society committed to the rule of law must ensure that criminal justice administration remains a function of adjudication conducted in courtrooms according to established procedures, not a spectacle performed for public consumption.

References

[1] LiveLaw. (2026, January 23). Public Exhibition Of Accused And Presumption Of Innocence. https://www.livelaw.in/articles/accused-public-exhibition-innocence-presumption-523133

[2] Indian Kanoon. (n.d.). Article 21 in Constitution of India. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1199182/

[3] Indian Kanoon. (n.d.). Article 14 in Constitution of India. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/367586/

[4] Indian Kanoon. (n.d.). Article 20 in Constitution of India. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/655638/

[5] Indian Kanoon. (n.d.). Prem Shankar Shukla vs Delhi Administration on 29 April, 1980. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/853252/

[6] Indian Kanoon. (n.d.). Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration on 20 December, 1979. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/778810/

[7] CJP. (2026, January). Rajasthan’s Public Shaming: Police humiliation practices defy law and human dignity. https://cjp.org.in/rajasthans-public-shaming-police-humiliation-practices-defy-law-and-human-dignity

[8] The Constitution of India. (n.d.). Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty. https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-21-protection-of-life-and-personal-liberty/

[9] Sabrang India. (2026, January). Parade of Public Shaming: How Rajasthan police’s illegal “arrest rituals” replace due process with public defilement. https://sabrangindia.in/parade-of-public-shaming-how-rajasthan-polices-illegal-arrest-rituals-replace-due-process-with-public-defilement/

The post Parading Accused in Public: The Rajasthan High Court’s Ruling on Presumption of Innocence and Police Power appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Introduction

The evolving landscape of criminal jurisprudence in India has witnessed a significant shift towards a more humanitarian approach to justice, balancing the imperatives of law enforcement with the fundamental principles of human dignity and compassion. A recent landmark decision by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Bhawani Pratap Singh v. State of Rajasthan exemplifies this progressive judicial approach, where the Court granted bail on humanitarian grounds in an NDPS case, allowing temporary release to an accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act [1]. This decision underscores the principle that the objective of criminal justice is not merely punitive but reformative and humane, reflecting a broader constitutional commitment to human rights and social welfare.

The Court’s decision to grant 60 days of temporary bail to enable the accused to care for his pregnant wife in the absence of family support represents a nuanced understanding of the balance between the severity of drug-related offenses and the legitimate humanitarian concerns that may arise during the course of criminal proceedings. This judgment contributes to the growing body of jurisprudence that recognizes the discretionary power of courts to grant temporary relief even in serious cases where regular bail might be inappropriate.

Legal Framework Governing Bail in NDPS Cases

Constitutional Foundation

The right to bail in India finds its constitutional foundation in Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to bail is implicit in the right to personal liberty, and that prolonged detention without trial violates the constitutional guarantee of personal freedom. However, this right is not absolute and must be balanced against the interests of society, the nature of the offense, and the likelihood of the accused interfering with the course of justice.

The NDPS Act and Bail Provisions

The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, contains stringent provisions regarding bail for offenses under the Act. Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes twin conditions for granting bail: first, the public prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the bail application, and second, the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offense and that he is not likely to commit any offense while on bail.

The rigorous provisions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act reflect the legislative intent to treat drug-related offenses with exceptional severity, recognizing the grave threat that narcotics pose to society. The provision states that “no person accused of an offense punishable for a term of imprisonment of more than three years under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offense and that he is not likely to commit any offense while on bail.”

Judicial Interpretation and Evolution

The Supreme Court and various High Courts have interpreted these provisions to recognize that while the NDPS Act imposes strict conditions for bail, the courts retain their inherent power to grant temporary bail in exceptional circumstances. Judicial interpretation has evolved to acknowledge that, even under strict bail provisions, courts may consider bail on humanitarian grounds in NDPS cases when exceptional personal circumstances warrant temporary relief.

The Concept of Temporary Bail in Indian Criminal Law

Definition and Scope

Temporary bail, also known as interim bail, is a form of conditional release granted by courts for a limited period to address specific exigencies or humanitarian concerns. Unlike regular bail, which is typically granted pending trial, temporary bail is designed to address immediate and pressing circumstances that require the accused’s presence outside custody for a defined period.

The concept of temporary bail recognizes that the criminal justice system must remain flexible enough to accommodate genuine humanitarian needs while maintaining the overall integrity of the custodial process. This form of bail is particularly relevant in cases involving serious offenses where regular bail might be inappropriate but where compelling personal or family circumstances warrant temporary relief.

Legal Precedents and Judicial Guidelines

The Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi (2022) 5 SCC 533 established important precedents regarding temporary bail in serious criminal cases. The Court recognized that while the seriousness of charges may preclude regular bail, courts retain the discretion to grant temporary bail for compelling reasons, including medical emergencies, family crises, and other humanitarian considerations [2].

Similarly, in Dadu v. State of Maharashtra (2000) 8 SCC 437, the Supreme Court held that temporary bail can be granted even in serious cases where regular bail is denied, provided there are exceptional circumstances that justify such relief. The Court emphasized that the power to grant bail, whether regular or temporary, forms an integral part of the court’s discretionary jurisdiction, guided by considerations of justice, equity, and necessity.

Analysis of the Rajasthan High Court Decision

Factual Background

In Bhawani Pratap Singh v. State of Rajasthan, decided on June 18, 2025, the accused faced charges under the NDPS Act for drug-related offenses. The unique circumstances of the case involved the accused’s wife being pregnant and expected to deliver within a few days, with no family members available to provide necessary assistance during this critical period. The accused sought bail on humanitarian grounds in the NDPS case to be present for his wife’s delivery and to provide essential care and support.

Judicial Reasoning

Justice Farjand Ali, presiding over the single judge bench, adopted a balanced approach that acknowledged both the seriousness of the charges and the humanitarian dimensions of the case. The Court explicitly stated that it was not inclined to grant regular bail owing to the gravity of the allegations and the sufficient prima facie material supporting the prosecution’s case. However, the Court recognized that the circumstances presented compelling grounds for temporary relief.

The Court noted that the pregnancy of the accused’s wife and the absence of family support, while not sufficient to warrant regular bail, constituted reasonable grounds to invoke the court’s discretionary power for temporary release. This case thus set a meaningful precedent for granting bail on humanitarian grounds in NDPS cases, where personal emergencies demand judicial flexibility without compromising legal safeguards.

Legal Principles Applied

The Rajasthan High Court’s decision was grounded in several well-established legal principles:

Discretionary Jurisdiction: The Court recognized that the power to grant bail, whether regular or temporary, forms an integral part of judicial discretionary jurisdiction. This discretion must be exercised judicially, taking into account all relevant factors including the nature of the offense, the strength of the prosecution’s case, and the personal circumstances of the accused.

Humanitarian Considerations: The Court acknowledged that criminal jurisprudence must accommodate legitimate humanitarian concerns. The principle that justice must be tempered with mercy found expression in the Court’s willingness to consider the accused’s family responsibilities and the immediate need for his presence during his wife’s delivery.

Proportionality: The Court applied the principle of proportionality, recognizing that while the charges were serious, the requested relief was limited in scope and duration. The temporary nature of the bail, coupled with appropriate safeguards, ensured that the interests of justice were not compromised.

Conditions Imposed

The Court imposed several conditions to ensure that the temporary bail did not undermine the integrity of the criminal justice process:

1. Duration: The bail was granted for a limited period of 60 days, sufficient to address the immediate humanitarian concern but not so extensive as to compromise the prosecution’s case.
2. Financial Security: The accused was required to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and arrange for two sound and solvent sureties of Rs. 25,000 each to the satisfaction of the trial court.
3. Court Approval: The conditions were subject to the satisfaction of the trial court, ensuring that the lower court retained supervisory jurisdiction over the bail conditions.

Comparative Analysis with Similar Cases

Precedential Value

The Rajasthan High Court’s decision aligns with a growing body of jurisprudence that recognizes the humanitarian dimensions of criminal justice. Similar decisions by other High Courts have established that temporary bail can be granted in exceptional circumstances, even in cases involving serious offenses.

The Delhi High Court, in various cases, has granted temporary bail for medical emergencies, family crises, and other compelling personal circumstances. The principle underlying these decisions is that the criminal justice system must remain sufficiently flexible to accommodate genuine humanitarian needs while maintaining its deterrent effect.

Distinguishing Features

What distinguishes the Rajasthan High Court’s decision is its explicit recognition of the reformative and humane objectives of criminal justice. The Court’s emphasis on balancing legal sanctity with humanitarian considerations reflects a mature understanding of the role of the judiciary in a democratic society.

The decision also demonstrates the Court’s willingness to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in a manner that upholds both the rule of law and the principles of human dignity. This approach is consistent with the constitutional mandate to ensure that the criminal justice system serves not only the interests of law and order but also the broader objectives of social justice and human welfare.

Implications for Criminal Justice Reform

Humanizing Criminal Justice

The Rajasthan High Court’s decision contributes to the ongoing process of humanizing criminal justice in India. By recognizing that the objective of criminal justice is not merely punitive but reformative and humane, the Court has reinforced the constitutional commitment to human dignity and social welfare.

This approach is particularly significant in the context of the NDPS Act, which is known for its stringent provisions and limited scope for bail. The Court’s willingness to grant temporary bail on humanitarian grounds demonstrates that even in the most serious cases, the system must remain responsive to legitimate human needs and concerns.

Balancing Deterrence and Compassion

The decision illustrates the delicate balance that courts must strike between maintaining the deterrent effect of criminal law and accommodating genuine humanitarian concerns. This balance is essential for maintaining public confidence in the justice system while ensuring that the system remains humane and responsive to individual circumstances.

The Court’s approach suggests that deterrence can be maintained through appropriate conditions and safeguards, while compassion can be expressed through temporary relief in exceptional circumstances. This balanced approach is likely to encourage similar decisions in other jurisdictions and contribute to the evolution of more humane criminal justice practices.

Impact on Future Jurisprudence

The Rajasthan High Court’s decision is likely to influence future judicial decisions in similar cases. The explicit recognition of humanitarian considerations as a legitimate basis for temporary bail, even in serious cases, provides a precedent that other courts can follow in appropriate circumstances.

The decision also contributes to the development of guidelines for the exercise of judicial discretion in bail matters. The Court’s emphasis on the need to balance legal sanctity with humanitarian considerations provides a framework that other courts can adopt in similar situations.

Challenges and Criticisms

Potential for Abuse

Critics of the humanitarian approach to bail argue that it may create opportunities for abuse, with accused persons fabricating or exaggerating personal circumstances to secure temporary release. This concern is particularly relevant in cases involving serious offenses where the accused may have strong incentives to seek release from custody.

However, the safeguards built into the temporary bail system, including the requirement for court approval, financial security, and limited duration, help to mitigate these risks. The requirement that the circumstances be genuine and compelling also serves as a check against frivolous applications.

Consistency in Application

Another challenge is ensuring consistency in the application of humanitarian considerations across different courts and jurisdictions. The discretionary nature of bail decisions means that similar circumstances may be treated differently by different judges, potentially leading to disparities in the administration of justice.

The development of clear guidelines and precedents, such as the Rajasthan High Court’s decision, helps to address this concern by providing a framework for the consistent application of humanitarian considerations in bail decisions.

Balancing Competing Interests

The challenge of balancing competing interests – the rights of the accused, the interests of victims, the concerns of society, and the integrity of the criminal justice process – is complex and requires careful consideration of all relevant factors. The Rajasthan High Court’s decision demonstrates how this balance can be achieved through careful analysis and appropriate safeguards.

International Perspectives on Humanitarian Bail

Comparative Jurisprudence

The concept of humanitarian bail or temporary release on compassionate grounds is recognized in various international legal systems. The European Court of Human Rights has recognized that prolonged detention without consideration of personal circumstances may violate the right to liberty and security of person.

The United States federal system includes provisions for temporary release on compassionate grounds, particularly in cases involving medical emergencies or family crises. These provisions recognize that the criminal justice system must remain responsive to legitimate humanitarian concerns while maintaining its primary objectives of public safety and law enforcement.

Human Rights Considerations

The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Mandela Rules) emphasize the importance of maintaining human dignity and providing appropriate consideration for family and personal circumstances. These international standards support the approach taken by the Rajasthan High Court in recognizing the humanitarian dimensions of criminal justice.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which India is a party, recognizes the right to liberty and security of person and emphasizes the importance of humane treatment in the administration of justice. These international commitments provide additional support for the humanitarian approach to bail decisions.

Recommendations for Policy and Practice

Developing Guidelines

The success of the humanitarian approach to bail depends on the development of clear guidelines that provide consistency while maintaining necessary flexibility. These guidelines should address the criteria for granting temporary bail, the types of circumstances that may justify such relief, and the safeguards necessary to protect the integrity of the criminal justice process.

The guidelines should also address the documentation required to support applications for temporary bail, the duration of such relief, and the conditions that may be imposed to ensure compliance with the objectives of the bail system.

Training and Capacity Building

Judges, prosecutors, and defense lawyers need training in the humanitarian dimensions of criminal justice and the appropriate application of discretionary powers in bail decisions. This training should include an understanding of the legal framework, the relevant precedents, and the practical considerations involved in balancing competing interests.

The training should also address the importance of thorough investigation and verification of claimed circumstances, the appropriate use of conditions and safeguards, and the need for ongoing monitoring of compliance with bail conditions.

Institutional Reforms

The criminal justice system may need institutional reforms to support the effective implementation of humanitarian bail policies. This could include the establishment of specialized units to investigate and verify claimed circumstances, the development of monitoring systems to ensure compliance with bail conditions, and the creation of support services for accused persons and their families.

These reforms should be designed to enhance the effectiveness of the bail system while maintaining its primary objectives of ensuring the appearance of accused persons for trial and protecting the safety of the community.

Conclusion

The Rajasthan High Court’s decision in Bhawani Pratap Singh v. State of Rajasthan represents a significant contribution to the evolving jurisprudence on bail on humanitarian grounds in NDPS cases. By recognizing that the objective of criminal justice is not merely punitive but reformative and humane, the Court has reinforced the constitutional commitment to human dignity and social welfare.

The decision demonstrates that even in cases involving serious offenses under stringent laws like the NDPS Act, the criminal justice system must remain sufficiently flexible to accommodate genuine humanitarian concerns. The Court’s balanced approach, which maintains the integrity of the custodial process while providing temporary relief for compelling personal circumstances, offers a model for other courts to follow.

The implications of this decision extend beyond the immediate case to influence the broader development of criminal justice policy and practice in India. The explicit recognition of humanitarian considerations as a legitimate basis for temporary bail contributes to the ongoing process of humanizing criminal justice and ensuring that the system serves not only the interests of law and order but also the broader objectives of social justice and human welfare.

As India continues to develop its criminal justice system, decisions like this one provide valuable guidance for striking the appropriate balance between deterrence and compassion, between the needs of society and the rights of individuals, and between the demands of justice and the imperatives of human dignity. The challenge for the future will be to build on this foundation to create a criminal justice system that is both effective in maintaining law and order and responsive to the legitimate needs and concerns of all members of society.

The Rajasthan High Court’s ruling granting bail on humanitarian grounds in an NDPS case serves as a reminder that justice is not merely about punishment but about the broader objectives of creating a just and humane society. By recognizing the humanitarian dimensions of criminal justice, the Court has contributed to this larger goal and provided a precedent that will continue to influence the development of criminal jurisprudence in India for years to come.

References

[1] Bhawani Pratap Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 2885, decided on 18-6-2025. Available at: https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/06/30/rajasthan-high-court-temporary-bail-on-humanitarian-grounds-to-ndps-accused/ 

[2] Rakesh Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2022) 5 SCC 533. Available at: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/65bfad977ebe7f29688bd34c 

[3] Dadu v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 8 SCC 437  

[4] The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 37. Available at: https://narcoticsindia.nic.in/Acts/ndps-act-1985.pdf 

[5] Constitution of India, Article 21. Available at: https://www.india.gov.in/my-government/constitution-india 

[6] LiveLaw. (2025). “Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: June 2025.” Available at: https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/rajasthan-high-court/rajasthan-high-court-monthly-digest-june-2025-296333 

The post Bail on Humanitarian Grounds in NDPS Case: Rajasthan High Court’s Landmark Ruling appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.