SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Raj) 1621

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
FARJAND ALI, J.
Kailash S/o Phool Chand – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous III Bail Application No. 12900 of 2024
Decided on : 23-10-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Shahid Hasan, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Mohd. Haris, Mr. Aqil Khan
For the Respondent: Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP

IMPORTANT POINT
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and prolonged detention without trial violates this right.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail application - The accused-petitioner contended that no case for the alleged offences was made out against him, and his incarceration was unwarranted. The court emphasized the importance of a timely trial, stating that prolonged detention without trial infringes upon the fundamental rights of the accused. The court referenced previous judgments, including Hussainara Khatoon and Maneka Gandhi, which established the right to a speedy trial as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court noted that personal liberty is sacrosanct and should not be compromised by undue delays in the judicial process. The court ultimately granted bail to the accused-petitioner, recognizing the excessive duration of his pre-trial detention. (Paras 1, 7, 11, 30, 34)

(B) Right to Speedy Trial - The court reiterated that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right, and delays in the judicial process can lead to violations of this right. The court highlighted the need for timely trials to uphold justice and protect the rights of the accused. (Paras 30, 34)

Facts of the case:

The accused-petitioner has been in custody for an extended period while awaiting trial for offences under the IPC. The court considered the implications of prolonged detention on the accused's fundamental rights and the necessity of a fair trial.

Findings of Court:

The court found that the accused's prolonged detention without trial violated his fundamental right to a speedy trial, warranting the grant of bail.

Issues: The main issues addressed were the right to a speedy trial and the implications of prolonged pre-trial detention on the accused's rights.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the right to a speedy trial is fundamental and that undue delays in the judicial process infringe upon the rights of the accused, necessitating the grant of bail in this case.

Result: Bail application allowed.

ORDER :

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

S.No.

Particulars of the Case

 

1.

FIR Number

78/2021

2.

Concerned Police Station

Soap

3.

District

Tonk

4.

Offences alleged in the FIR

Under Sections 143, 341, 323 of IPC

5.

Offences added, if any

Under Section 325, 307/34 of IPC

6.

Date of passing of impugned order

-

2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

4. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record.

5. This Court has made an elaborate discussion with regard to bail of an under trial accused on the ground of delay in culmination of the trial. This Court feels that if the accused is under detention, it is obligatory for the prosecution to complete the trial within a reasonable period. 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; 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top