IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
Nitin Anandrao Avaghade – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
P. C . :
1. Heard Mr. Salunke, learned Advocate for Applicant and Mr.Dedhia, learned APP for State.
2. Applicant - accused has filed the present Application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C.") in connection with Crime No. I 229/2015 registered with Ulhasnagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 386, 201 & 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC"); under Sections 3, 25, 7 and 37 of the Arms Act, 1959; under Sections 37(1) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and under Sections 3(1)(i), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (for short "MCOC Act").
3. FIR dated 11.09.2015 is lodged by the first informant stating that on that date of incident at about 3.30 p.m. outside the office of the cable operator near Gol Maidan, Ulhasnagar Applicant before me committed offence by firing from a weapon at the victim fatally. Conspiracy is alleged pursuant to which 13 accused were apprehended and arrested including the present Applicant. Applicant has been in incarceration from 15.09.2015 and as of today he has undergone a period of detention for 9 year
Prolonged incarceration without trial violates the right to speedy trial under Article 21, warranting bail as the rule and refusal as the exception.
Prolonged pre-trial detention violates the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21, necessitating bail for the accused.
The right to speedy trial is fundamental under Article 21, and prolonged incarceration without trial necessitates bail, emphasizing that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
The court emphasized that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, particularly in cases of long incarceration without trial, invoking the right to speedy justice under Article 21.
The court emphasizes that prolonged incarceration violates the right to a speedy trial under Article 21, establishing that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
The court emphasized that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, particularly for under-trials with prolonged incarceration, highlighting the right to a speedy trial under Article 21.
Prolonged incarceration without trial violates the right to speedy justice under Article 21, necessitating bail despite the gravity of the charges.
The right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is fundamental, and bail is the rule while jail is the exception, especially when trial has not commenced for an extended period.
The principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception is reinforced, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception is reinforced, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial and the presumption of innocence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.