Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
Santosh Pralhad Waghmare – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGEMENT. :
[MILIND N. JADHAV, J.]
1. Heard Mr. Deshmukh, learned Advocate for Applicant and Mr. Karmakar, learned APP for Respondent – The State of Maharashtra.
2. This is an Application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking Bail in connection with C.R. No.76 of 2017 registered with Hill Line Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and 37(1), 135 of Bombay Police Act, 1951.
3. Applicant is arrested on 26.03.2017. Bail Applications filed by Applicant previously have been rejected. Initially Applicant has filed Bail Application through jail to Court which has remained pending on the docket of this Court for past one year. Subsequently, since said Bail Application was not heard, Applicant has appointed Mr. Deshmukh to represent and espouse his cause in place of appointed Advocate.
4. There is one message which I want to send across to the appointed Advocates in such matters. Once they are appointed in such matters, it is the duty of appointed Advocates through legal aid, to move the Court and apprise the Court of the Application especially in such long incarceration cases
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.
Prolonged pre-trial detention violates the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21, necessitating bail for the accused.
Prolonged incarceration without trial violates the right to speedy trial under Article 21, warranting bail as the rule and refusal as the exception.
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 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.
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 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.
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 right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and prolonged detention without trial is unjustifiable, especially in the absence of compelling evidence against the accused.
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
