Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
Goldy – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ND&PS Act’), vide FIR No. 394 of 2020, dated 22.12.2020, registered at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. The petitioner has been falsely implicated. He was employed as a cleaner in the truck before the incident. The driver and the owner of the vehicle were arrayed as accused. The petitioner has been in custody for more than four years. The trial is at the initial stage. Out of 23 witnesses 07 witnesses have been examined, and the matter is now listed for examination of the witnesses at Serial Nos 1, 3, 4 and 5 on 17.5.2025. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition.
2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 22.12.2020. The police received a secret informant at 6:30 a.m. that Balbir Singh, the driver, and Goldy (the present petitioner), the
The right to a speedy trial is a constitutional right under Article 21, and prolonged detention without trial justifies the granting of bail.
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and prolonged detention without trial justifies bail, even with prior convictions.
Successive bail in NDPS intermediate quantity case granted due to Article 21 speedy trial violation from long incarceration and trial delay, despite prior rejection and antecedents.
Successive NDPS bail applications allowed on change in circumstances like trial delay infringing speedy trial right under Article 21, overriding offence seriousness and antecedents for grant of bail.
Prolonged incarceration and trial delay in NDPS case with intermediate quantity constitute change in circumstances for successive bail, enforcing speedy trial right under Article 21 despite prior rej....
Successive NDPS bail granted despite prior dismissal due to over one-year pre-trial detention violating speedy trial right under Article 21, intermediate quantity, and despite antecedents.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21, and inordinate delays can justify bail, irrespective of the seriousness of the charges.
Prolonged trial delay in NDPS intermediate quantity case violates speedy trial right under Article 21, constituting change in circumstances for successive bail despite prior rejections and antecedent....
The right to a speedy trial is a constitutional guarantee under Article 21, and undue delays in trial proceedings can justify the granting of bail.
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
