Overview The Supreme Court intervened in a case involving a Ugandan woman who had been detained despite securing bail under the NDPS Act . The detainee could not furnish a solvent surety , leading to prolonged incarceration. By invoking Article 21 , the Court allowed her release on a personal bond, underscoring the constitutional protection extended to non‑citizens. Key Developments The Court held that Article 21 is enforceable for a foreign national, ensuring the right to liberty. The detainee was released on a personal bond rather than a cash surety. The decision clarifies procedural safeguards in drug‑related cases, especially when the accused cannot meet financial surety requirements. The ruling may set a precedent for future cases involving foreign nationals under criminal statutes. Important Facts Petitioner: a Ugandan woman detained under the NDPS Act . Legal issue: inability to provide a solvent surety . Judicial relief: release on a personal bond after the Court affirmed the applicability of Article 21 to foreigners. Implication: reinforces that constitutional rights are not limited to citizens, aligning with international human‑rights norms. UPSC Relevance This judgment touches upon several UPSC syllabus points. Under GS Paper II (Polity) , candidates must understand the scope of fundamental rights, especially Article 21 , and its extraterritorial application. The case also illustrates the functioning of the Supreme Court in safeguarding individual liberties. Moreover, the interplay between criminal law ( NDPS Act ) and constitutional safeguards is a classic example of law‑policy nexus, a frequent UPSC essay topic. Way Forward Law‑makers may consider amending bail provisions in the NDPS Act , ensuring that the right to liberty is not unduly compromised by monetary barriers. Judicial bodies should continue to monitor the implementation of personal bonds to prevent misuse. For aspirants, tracking subsequent judgments will help gauge the evolving jurisprudence on the universality of fundamental rights.