Back
JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Atul Sreedharan, J.
(Through Video Conferencing)
Bansi Lal – Appellant
versus
U.T. of J&K and Anr. – Respondents
Bail App No.30 of 2024
Decided on 3.7.2024
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Constitution of India – Article 21 – Bail application – Applicant was arrested in year 2006 – He being a member of Police had been charged with for murder of innocent man projecting him to be a terrorist – There are total 72 witnesses in this case out of which only 28 have been examined in past 17 years – This is a clear cut case of violation of Article 21 on account of delayed trial – Trial is delayed at stage of prosecution witnesses – State is unable to show how delay could be attributed to applicant – Bail granted to applicant.(Paras 3 and 4)
Result: Bail Application allowed.
ORDER
The applicant has moved the present application for grant of bail in the aforementioned case. He was arrested in the year 2006. He being a member of the police had been charged with for murder of innocent man projecting him to be a terrorist.
2. Learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that he has been in judicial custody for the past almost 18 years and has never come out on bail except for a few months on interim bail.
3. There are total 72 (Seventy two) witnesses in this case out of which only 28 have been examined in the past 17 (Seventeen) years. This Court is astound by the facts of this case. This is a clear cut case of violation of Article 21 on account of delayed trial. The trial is delayed at the stage of prosecution witnesses. The State is unable to show how the delay could be attributed to the applicant.
4. Under the circumstances, the application is allowed. The applicant is to be released on bail forthwith upon furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Registrar Judicial. The application stands disposed of.
Long incarceration of a person without trial is a clear cut case of violation of Article 21 of Constitution.
Prolonged detention without trial infringes the constitutional right to liberty and a speedy trial, necessitating bail for the accused.
Prolonged incarceration without trial infringes fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, justifying bail when prosecution delays proceedings unnecessarily.
The entitlement of an under-trial prisoner to not be detained in jail custody for an indefinite period, as it violates Article 21 of the Constitution, and the importance of speedy trial.
An accused's right to a speedy trial is paramount, and prolonged incarceration without trial infringes upon fundamental rights.
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental under Article 21, and prolonged incarceration without trial violates this right, warranting the grant of bail.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and prolonged incarceration without trial is impermissible.
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
