Rahul Bhargav v. State Of Punjab
! "
#$
SUBHAS MEHLA
! "
#
$$$ SUBHAS MEHLA % $ %
&'()
*+*( % ,- ) +. (% +% *+*% ***/ ) " 0 %/'1
23
" 44
*
0
0./+++5 4!! 3 33 6 7 3 7(+++ 3
! 2 2 ,- (
4 0 !
0
!(% +% *+*%7 6 !
0
! 0
086 8 !
9 3 !
%1 %* *+*%
! 0
3 0
3
5! 9 32 !
0 *% 8- 0
&
:
! "
#
0 !
2 ;
0! <0
! 6 3
0! 5!3 0 0
;
3 0= !!
<0>
3 0 (. )
?
.
3 !&'())*+',-./0-12,234 (. )
3
(. )
# ! = -5, +-6-789*+7078* 2-2*(: ;,78-4% <*',-.$*-=*2(<<*-.
+,),1-.( >!"?(: 3 9@ !
8 (. )"
2 0 4 !
) & A6
!"#$% &' ( '") * + (',-(& . /)'
" 0 "/ ")
+'( +'
1 ) ( ',&//, +"/
',) / '",
(,- )'
& '', / '
/ ) ( "( / ' ( ( ' ." (
( ( & ' '
+, /( 1 (, /+ ( !
.
+
"#$% 2 '
Although the NDPS Act prescribes stringent conditions for the grant of bail, every statute is required to operate in conformity with the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution of India. Notwithstanding the rigours of N.D.P.S. Act, the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 cannot be rendered illusory and must be duly balanced. The Supreme Court in V. Senthil Balaji v. The Deputy Director, 2024 INSC 739, held that higher thresholds for granting bail in stringent penal statutes like the PMLA, UAPA, and NDPS Act cannot be a tool to keep an accused incarcerated without trial:
!
!
!
# $$$
!
$ %
&'
"
(
) &
!
$ /
@!
03 )
8
!
0 3 !!
!
!
-..(@*;
4 0 8 B C4 8C"0
3 !0
!
%+
DE 0 ;,7<(7*; 0
! "
(SUBHAS MEHLA) mamta JUDGE F 2 C C) F C)