Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Anandraj S/o Menpal Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This second bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.02/2024 registered at Special Police Station, District C.I.D Surakchha (Raj.) for offences punishable under Sections 3 & 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923.
2. First bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 24.01.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail before the learned trial court under the provisions of Section 480 (6) of BNSS (Corresponding to Section 437 (6) of Cr.PC).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since rejection of the first bail application, more than six months have elapsed, yet the trial has not progressed beyond the stage of pre-charge evidence. It is contended that the prosecution is not producing its witnesses promptly, resulting in unwarranted delay in the proceedings. Counsel further submits that as the charges have not yet been framed, the applicant is precluded from availing remedy of bail before the Trial Magistrate under Section 480 (6) of the BNSS . In these circumstances petitioner has no option but to make prayer befor
Prolonged incarceration without trial is unconstitutional and violates the right to speedy trial under Article 21; balance must be maintained between personal liberty and societal interest.
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 detention without trial violates this right, warranting bail even in serious offenses.
An accused's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 mandates that excessive delays in trial should not negate the possibility of bail under serious charges.
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is fundamental; prolonged detention without trial justifies bail, regardless of the seriousness of the charges.
The court emphasized the need to balance the individual's right to personal freedom with the right of police investigation, and considered the delay in trial, lack of prima facie evidence, and absenc....
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21, and delays in trial can justify bail, even in serious offenses involving commercial quantities of narcotics.
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
