Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Sandeep Sharma, J
Daleep Singh Negi – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Bail petitioner namely Daleep Singh Negi, who is behind bars since 14.05.2024, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.14 of 2024, dated 14.05.2024, under Sections 420 & 467 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station New Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. Respondent-State has filed the status report and HC Vinod Kumar has come present with record. Record perused and returned.
2. Close scrutiny of record/status report made available to this Court reveals that on 14.05.2024 complainant Nishant got his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., alleging therein that he had passed 10+2 and since March, 2024 had been looking for a job. He alleged that during the said period, he came in contact with Daleep Singh Negi (petitioner herein), who claimed himself to be a District Magistrate. He alleged that prior to his meeting with the bail-petitioner, his cousin Ritik Roshan had also met the bail-petitioner for issue of a licence. He alleged that bail- petitioner visited Deputy Commissioner’s office two or three
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental under Article 21 of the Constitution, and prolonged incarceration without trial violates this right, warranting bail.
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.
Prolonged pre-trial detention over two years due to inordinate trial delay violates Article 21 speedy trial right, warranting bail despite serious narcotics offence gravity.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and prolonged incarceration without trial is impermissible.
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 speedy trial under Article 21 can justify bail due to inordinate delays, despite the serious nature of criminal charges.
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.
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.
The denial of bail based solely on the nature of the crime violates the right to a speedy trial under Article 21, especially in cases with prolonged detention awaiting trial.
The right to a speedy trial is a constitutional guarantee, and prolonged detention without trial constitutes a violation of Article 21, warranting bail even in cases involving commercial quantities o....
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
