Back
J. B. PARDIWALA, UJJAL BHUYAN
Kailash Chandra Kapri – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case facts: 35-year delay in simple hurt trial (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. right to speedy trial under article 21 (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 3. proceedings quashed due to inordinate delay (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47) |
ORDER :
“Crime and the actions of the criminal justice system are mutually responsive, influencing each other in ways that are only minimally predictable; general changes in the political and socio-economic climate will affect both crime and the criminal justice system in a similar manner.”
[Alfred Blumstein in Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice, Khadish (Ed.)]
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the order passed by the High court of Allahabad dated 23.02.2006 in application under Section 482 No. 20610 of 2024 by which the application preferred by the appellant-herein praying for quashing of the criminal proceedings of Case No. 545 of 1991 arising out of Case Crime No. 115 of 1989 registered with the GRP Rambagh Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 323 and 504 of the
State VS Narayan Waman Nerukar - 2002 5 Supreme 517: This case is categorized as bad law because the entry explicitly states, "The order of the High Court quashing criminal prosecution is not sustained under law." This phrasing indicates that the judgment was reversed or invalidated by a higher authority.
**Followed/Applicable Precedents (Principles established for ongoing application)**
* Union of India VS K. A. Najeeb - 2021 1 Supreme 525: This case establishes current legal principles regarding the grant of bail, specifically holding that statutory restrictions (like UAPA section 43D(5)) do not oust the Constitutional Courts' ability to grant bail for violations of Part III. It remains active law.
* Shaheen Welfare Association VS Union Of India - 1996 2 Supreme 469: This is characterized as a "historic judgment" providing guidelines for the classification of undertrials. It establishes a binding framework for TADA cases under the lens of Article 21, indicating it is an active precedent.
* State of Kerala VS Rasheed - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 1100: This case provides specific judicial guidance on the exercise of discretion regarding section 231 deferrals. It sets forth the "factors to be considered," implying it is the current standard to be followed by trial courts.
**Case-Specific/Limited Application**
* : This case is categorized based on its unique outcome. The court explicitly states the prosecution is quashed "in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case." It functions as a precedent for how to handle inordinate delays (13 years) in sanctioning, rather than a broad rule of law applying to all cases.
None. The judicial treatment for all cases provided in the list could be reasonably categorized based on the explicit descriptors (e.g., "not sustained," "historic judgment," "guidelines laid down," "peculiar facts") provided in the summaries.
Inordinate delay in trial of minor offences due to prosecution lapses violates speedy trial right under Article 21 warranting quashing of proceedings by constitutional courts.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21, and prolonged detention without trial violates this right.
Prolonged pre-trial detention violates the right to a speedy trial, necessitating bail when delays are not caused by the accused.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and prolonged detention without trial is unjust.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and prolonged detention without trial is impermissible.
Bail – Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. does not exclude offences under NDPS Act – Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not consistent with Article 21.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and prolonged incarceration without trial violates this right.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and prolonged detention without trial is impermissible.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and prolonged detention without trial is unjust.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
