The Rajasthan High Court recently emphasized that “personal liberty is an invaluable asset,” asserting that an individual cannot be held in custody indefinitely while awaiting trial. This statement came as the court granted bail to Sheruddin, a 27-year-old man who had been incarcerated for 52 months after his arrest for possessing an illegal amount of cannabis on February 15, 2022. His case was filed by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) in Jodhpur under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
During the proceedings, Justice Anil Kumar Upman remarked on June 29 that personal liberty is a fundamental human right, vital to a dignified existence. The court highlighted that the right to life and personal liberty, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, encompasses the right to live with dignity, rather than merely existing without purpose.
This was the third request for bail from Sheruddin, following the denial of his previous application in September 2025. The court had previously instructed the trial court to expedite the proceedings, ideally within six months. However, as that timeline elapsed without resolution, Sheruddin renewed his bail request based on the prolonged duration of his detention.
His attorney argued that despite the court’s prior directives, the trial had progressed at an exceedingly slow rate for over nine months. The defense pointed out that prosecution witnesses had frequently failed to appear, even after being summoned and despite the trial court’s efforts to compel their attendance.
Having already spent more than 4.4 years in jail, Sheruddin’s defense contended that further detention served no purpose. They referenced Supreme Court rulings that recognize extended imprisonment as a valid basis for granting bail, especially when there is little indication that the trial will conclude soon.
The prosecution opposed the bail application, asserting that the charges under the NDPS Act were serious and that the evidence against Sheruddin warranted his continued detention.
The high court determined that the responsibility for the delays in the trial rested with the prosecution, not with the defendant. The court acknowledged that the charge-framing process had been completed by May 18, 2024, placing the burden on the prosecution to present witnesses and finalize evidence. Despite numerous opportunities provided by the trial court, the prosecution had not been able to secure the attendance of key witnesses.
Four crucial witnesses, all public servants involved in the investigation, remained unexamined. The court noted that these individuals were aware of the ongoing legal proceedings and were expected to cooperate, yet they failed to appear on multiple occasions. The trial court had even issued an arrest warrant for the investigating officer on February 16 due to his absence. The trial was scheduled several times from March to June, but the remaining prosecution witnesses did not attend.
The court expressed disappointment that the case was based on a complaint from the Narcotics Control Bureau, whose officials did not assist in expediting the trial process. Considering Sheruddin’s lengthy detention, his clean criminal record, and the improbability of a swift trial conclusion, the high court concluded that continuing his imprisonment would violate his constitutional rights to a speedy trial and personal liberty.
Vineet Upadhyay serves as an Assistant Editor at The Indian Express, where he focuses on in-depth coverage of the Indian legal system. With extensive experience in legal journalism, he specializes in clarifying Supreme Court rulings and issues regarding constitutional rights, criminal justice, and consumer and environmental law.
