Delhi High Court Grants Default Bail: Extension of NDPS Investigation Without Notice Violates Article 21
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna says accused must be informed or produced when extension is sought
Court rules that denial of notice undermines right to liberty; bail becomes an indefeasible right
By Our Legal Reporter
New Delhi: December 13, 2025:
In a landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court has granted default bail to Jaivardhan Dhawan in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). The Court held that extending the statutory period for investigation without notifying or producing the accused violates Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
Also Read: Capital Gains and Gifting in India: What Taxpayers Must Know to Avoid Surprises
The ruling underscores the importance of procedural fairness in criminal law and strengthens safeguards against arbitrary detention.
Background of the Case
- Jaivardhan Dhawan was arrested by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) under the NDPS Act.
- The statutory period for completing investigation was extended by the trial court under Section 36A (4) of the NDPS Act.
- However, the extension was granted without informing or producing Dhawan before the court.
- Dhawan challenged the extension, arguing that it violated his constitutional rights and denied him the opportunity to contest the request.
- The Delhi High Court agreed, granting him default bail under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Court’s Observations
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made several critical observations:
- Presence of the accused is mandatory—either physically or virtually—when the prosecution seeks more time for investigation.
- Notice is not a formality; it is a safeguard that allows the accused to know what is happening and raise objections.
- Extending time without notice directly affects the accused’s indefeasible right to default bail.
- Such an order cannot be treated as a minor technical lapse; it is a serious violation of Article 21.
The Court emphasized that liberty is too precious to be curtailed without strict adherence to due process.
Legal Principles
- Section 36A (4) NDPS Act: Allows extension of investigation period beyond 180 days in serious drug cases.
- Section 187(3) BNSS: Grants default bail if investigation is not completed within the statutory period.
- Article 21 of the Constitution: Protects personal liberty and requires fair, just, and reasonable procedure.
Also Read: Delhi High Court Declares Airline Pilots Are ‘Workmen’ Under Labour Law, Salary Not a Barrier
The Court clarified that procedural safeguards are substantive rights, not technicalities.
Impact on Criminal Justice
This ruling has significant implications:
- For accused persons: It strengthens their right to default bail when procedural safeguards are ignored.
- For courts: It reinforces the duty to ensure fairness in extending investigation periods.
- For law enforcement: It serves as a reminder that investigative urgency cannot override constitutional rights.
The judgment balances the need to combat drug crimes with the imperative of protecting individual liberty.
Expert Opinions
Legal experts welcomed the ruling:
- Criminal lawyers said the judgment ensures accountability in NDPS proceedings, which often involve long detentions.
- Human rights advocates noted that the decision affirms the principle that liberty cannot be sacrificed for convenience.
- Academics highlighted that the ruling strengthens judicial oversight in cases where investigative agencies seek more time.
Similar Cases
- In earlier rulings, courts have consistently held that default bail is an indefeasible right once statutory timelines lapse.
- The Supreme Court has emphasized that procedural fairness is integral to Article 21.
- The Delhi High Court’s decision aligns with this jurisprudence, extending clarity to NDPS cases.
Broader Implications
The case highlights the tension between state power and individual liberty:
- It underscores the judiciary’s role in preventing misuse of stringent laws like NDPS.
- It signals to investigative agencies that strict compliance with procedure is non-negotiable.
- For society, it reinforces confidence in the justice system’s commitment to fairness.
This ruling may influence future cases where extensions of investigation are granted without notice.
Conclusion
Also Read: Supreme Court Questions ED’s Power to Seize Assets Without Judicial Oversight
The Delhi High Court’s ruling in Jaivardhan Dhawan v. Narcotics Control Bureau is a milestone in protecting personal liberty under Article 21. By granting default bail and declaring that extensions without notice are invalid, the Court has reaffirmed that procedural safeguards are essential to justice.
For India’s criminal justice system, the message is clear: liberty cannot be curtailed without due process. Investigative urgency must always yield to constitutional rights.
Suggested Keywords for SEO (Google + ChatGPT)
- Delhi High Court NDPS default bail ruling
- Jaivardhan Dhawan v NCB case
- Article 21 violation NDPS investigation extension
- Section 36A(4) NDPS Act bail
- Section 187(3) BNSS default bail India
- Indefeasible right to bail India
- Delhi HC Justice Neena Bansal Krishna judgment
- Procedural safeguards NDPS Act India
- Narcotics Control Bureau bail case Delhi HC
- Liberty and due process Delhi High Court ruling
Also Read: RBI says crypto is just code, not currency; investors warned of tax and legal consequences
Also Read: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Case Over Facebook Post Against Prophet Muhammad