Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI, J.
Ajay Kumar S/o Shri Natthuram – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous IV Bail Application No. 11986 of 2023
Decided On : 05-04-2024
SPEEDY TRIAL - BAIL APPLICATION - Article 21, Sections 436, 436A, 309(1) of the CrPC - The court emphasized the fundamental right to a speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, interpreting it as an inalienable right that must be upheld to prevent indefinite incarceration of under-trial prisoners. The court referenced various precedents that established the necessity for trials to conclude within a reasonable timeframe, highlighting that prolonged detention without trial infringes upon personal liberty and dignity. The court's decision to dismiss the bail application was influenced by the applicant's lengthy custody period, which violated his right to a timely trial.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner has been in custody since May 31, 2018, and has faced a prolonged trial process, infringing upon his fundamental right to a speedy trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial had been violated due to the excessive duration of his custody without trial. It emphasized that personal liberty is a fundamental right and that the justice system must ensure timely trials to uphold this right.
Issues: Whether the prolonged detention of the petitioner without trial constitutes a violation of his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right that must be protected to prevent unjust and indefinite incarceration of under-trial prisoners. It established that the duration of custody should be reasonable and that delays in trial must not be attributed to the accused.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the bail application as not pressed but directed the trial court to expedite the trial process, aiming for its conclusion within six months.
ORDER :
1. Learned counsel for the applicant does not want to press the instant criminal misc. bail application.
2. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. bail application is dismissed as not pressed.
3. The petitioner is said to be in custody since 31.05.2018 and as such now five years have elapsed. His fundamental right to have speedy trial has certainly been infringed for no fault of him. This Court has passed an elaborated order in the matter of Lichhaman Ram @ Laxman Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5916/2023 decided on 08.02.2024; in which effect of protection of trial has been discussed; the relevant part of the said order is being reproduced as under:
7. This Court feels that the nature and gravity of offence and availability of material in support thereof are not the only factors to be taken into account while considering a bail application. The fact that trial is to be concluded within a reasonable period of time is imperative while considering grant of bail to an accused. It is settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is presumption of innocence at the pre-conviction stage and the objective for keeping a person in jail is to ensure his presence to face the trial and to receive the sentence that may be passed. This detention is not supposed to be punitive or preventive in nature. An accused is considered to be innocent until he or she or they are proven guilty in the court of law.
8. As per the fundamental rights granted to every citizen/person by the Constitution of India, the accused cannot be expected to languish in custody for an indefinite period if the trial is taking unreasonably long time to reach the stage of conclusion. An under trial prisoner, who is waiting for the trial to complete and reach a conclusion about his guilt for the alleged crime, is not only deprived of his right to a speedy trial but his other fundamental rights like right to liberty, freedom of movement, freedom of practising a profession or carrying on any occupation, business or trade and freedom to dignity are also hampered.
9. Life without liberty is like a body without soul. Freedom is the open window through which pours the sunlight of the human spirit and human dignity. Personal liberty of the accused is sacrosanct and quintessential to the very spirit and structure of a civilisation. Jeremy Bentham, the great English jurist, postulated that the greatest happiness of the greatest number is the end of law. The concept of civil liberty is embedded in individualism. This simply means that the purpose of the state is to help every individual in reaching their highest development and evolving into the best personality, thereby reaching a point where law and state are not required by the society. Thus, when personal liberty of an individual is threatened, his development is in peril which is a matter of great concern. Sir Wiiliam Blackstone has deftly observed on page 134 of the first volume of his book, ‘Commentaries on the Laws of England’ that:
“Personal liberty consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation or moving one's person to whatsoever place one's own inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law.”
Justice cannot be presumed to have been administered merely on passing of a judgment of conviction and order of sentence or a judgment of acquittal; rather administration of justice shall be deemed to have been completed when the trial is concluded within a reasonable period of time and the accused as well as the complainant/victim are not made to wait for years on end to know the result of the trial.
10. One of the founding fathers and the Third President of them United States of America, Thomas Jefferson, has rightly said that, “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.” Though the victim/complainant party has the right to seek justice against an
AI
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and prolonged detention without trial is a violation of this right.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and prolonged detention without trial violates this right.
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is fundamental, and prolonged pre-conviction detention without trial is a violation of personal liberty and justice principles.
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, and prolonged pre-conviction detention without trial is unconstitutional and unjustifiable.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and prolonged detention without trial is a violation of this right. The court emphasized that pre-con....
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and prolonged detention without trial is a violation of this right.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right, and prolonged detention without trial is a violation of this right.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and prolonged pre-trial detention without trial is a violation of this right.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and prolonged detention without trial is a violation of this right.
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
