Back
S. TALAPATRA, SAVITRI RATHO
D. Anita Majhi @ Mila – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
JUDGMENT
S. Talapatra, J.—We have heard Mr. P.K. Jena, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners as well as Mr. J. Katikia, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite Parties.
2. By means of this petition, the Petitioners have urged this court to quash the cases catalogued under Annexure-1, AFR which are pending against the Petitioners either in the investigation stage or where the trial has been held up. A catalogue of those cases where the trial has commenced, but not concluded have been provided by the Petitioners including their status on the day of filing of the writ petition.
3. Mr. Jena, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners in his submission has drawn our attention to similar other cases where the Petitioners have already been acquitted. He has further added that Petitioners are being hunted by the State for their social activities, non-violent and peaceful in nature. But the State has, without any foundation, considered their activities as hostile to the State and deliberately branded their activities as “extremist” which ar
No one can be kept languishing in custody for indefinite period in anticipation of completion of trial.
Speedy trial is of the essence of criminal justice and there can be no doubt that delay in trial by itself constitutes denial of justice.
Accused in judicial custody post-conviction must be afforded a speedy trial and timely sentencing to enable the right to appeal and challenge their conviction.
The court ruled that multiple FIRs for the same cause of action infringe the accused's right to a speedy trial, necessitating consolidation of cases for efficient judicial proceedings.
Declined quashing of FIR under inherent powers as witnesses named petitioner establishing prima facie case; trial delay not warranting quashing, instead directed conclusion within five months to upho....
The right to a speedy trial is integral to the right to free and fair trial under Article 21, impacted by delays and the non-availability of documentary evidence.
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental under Article 21, and significant delays in filing complaints can undermine their credibility and warrant quashing of proceedings.
Since the provisions which engraft an exception use the phrase ‘may’ with reference to conducting a joint trial, a separate trial is usually not contrary to law even if a joint trial could be conduct....
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
