Delhi High Court Grants Default Bail to Jaivardhan Dhawan Due to Procedural Lapse by Narcotics Bureau

High Court rules extension of investigation period invalid without notifying the accused, emphasizes protection of personal liberty under Article 21.

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has granted default bail to Jaivardhan Dhawan, who was accused in a narcotics case, highlighting a critical procedural lapse by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB). Justice Neena Bansal Krishna presided over the case, focusing on the mandatory requirement of notifying the accused when seeking an extension of the investigation period under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

The case stems from a secret operation by the NCB that led to the interception and arrest of Dhawan and co-accused Amarjeet Kumar Sinha in May 2025. The NCB had recovered a significant quantity of narcotics and sought to extend the investigation period by 120 days beyond the statutory 180 days. However, the extension was granted without notifying Dhawan or allowing him to be present during the hearing, either physically or virtually.

The Court ruled that such an omission violated Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which safeguards personal liberty and mandates a fair procedure before any restriction. This procedural lapse rendered the extension order invalid, directly impacting Dhawan's right to default bail.

The judgment emphasized that the presence of the accused is a crucial safeguard when considering extensions for investigation periods, ensuring the accused is aware of proceedings and can voice objections. The Court noted that the failure to notify Dhawan was not a minor procedural error but a gross violation of his rights.

In light of these findings, the High Court set aside the orders extending the investigation period and denying Dhawan's default bail application. Dhawan is now entitled to default bail, subject to conditions such as furnishing a personal bond and ensuring regular court appearances.

This ruling underscores the judiciary's role in upholding procedural fairness and personal liberty, particularly in cases involving extended detention periods without due process.

Bottom Line:

Extension of investigation period under Section 36A(4) NDPS Act invalid without notice to accused - Mandatory presence of accused at the time of consideration of extension application is essential safeguard under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Statutory provision(s): Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 36A(4), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 187(3), Constitution of India, 1950 Article 21

Jaivardhan Dhawan v. Narcotics Control Bureau, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2820862