Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Hom Dei @Shallu - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
CrMP(M) No.814 of 2025
Decided on : 09-05-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 120B, and 201 - Bail application filed by applicant during trial - Applicant claims false implication and violation of right to speedy trial under Article 21 - Trial not concluded despite 4 years in custody - Court emphasizes the fundamental right to a speedy trial and grants bail. (Paras 1, 6, 15, 22, 23)
(B) Right to Speedy Trial - The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, ensuring that no individual is subjected to undue incarceration without timely adjudication. (Paras 16, 18)
Facts of the case:
The applicant has been in judicial custody since 22.02.2021, accused of murder and related offenses. The trial has not concluded, with only 16 out of 51 witnesses examined. The applicant argues for bail based on her young age and the lengthy delay in trial. (Paras 3, 5, 13)
Findings of Court:
The court finds that continued detention serves no purpose and violates the applicant's right to a speedy trial. The applicant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. (Paras 19, 20)
Issues: The main issues include the applicant's right to bail based on the delay in trial and the principle of parity with a co-accused already granted bail. (Paras 8, 20)
Ratio Decidendi: The court rules that prolonged judicial custody without trial constitutes pre-trial punishment, which is impermissible. The applicant's right to a speedy trial has been violated, warranting her release on bail. (Paras 19, 22)
Result: Bail application allowed; applicant ordered to be released on bail with conditions. (Paras 22, 23)
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
By way of the present application, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), applicant-Hom Dei @Shallu has sought her release, on bail, during the pendency of trial, in case FIR No.57 of 2021, dated 22.02.2021, registered under Sections 302, 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’), with Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.
2. According to the applicant, she is resident of the address, as mentioned in the application and is having deep roots in the society.
3. As per the applicant, she has falsely been implicated, by the police, in the present case, as, there is no evidence, connecting her, with the crime, in question. The applicant is stated to be in judicial custody since 22.02.2021.
4. As per applicant, she had earlier tried her luck by moving similar bail application, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. However, the same was rejected vide order dated 16.06.2022.
5. It is the case of the applicant that despite such a long period in the judicial custody, trial against her has not been concluded.
6. In order to buttress her contention, it has also been pleaded in the application that there are total 51 prosecution witnesses, out of which, only 15 prosecution witnesses have been examined and on the basis of above fact, it has been pleaded that inordinate delay, in conclusion of the trial, violates her precious right, under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
7. The applicant has put forward her young age of 25 years, as one of the grounds, seeking the relief of bail.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has submitted that even, on the ground of parity, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail, as her co- accused, namely Sanjay Sharma, has already been released on bail, by this Court, vide order dated 08.11.2024, passed in CrMP(M) No.2212 of 2024, titled as ‘Sanjay Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh’.
9. Apart from this, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant, has given certain undertakings, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial.
10. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the bail application.
11. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 22.02.2021, an information was given by Pradhan GP Saned, over telephone, which has been entered as Rapat No.14, at 08:17am.
11.1. As per the said information, near Cow Shelter at Bhagwania, dead body of a boy, aged about 12-13 years, is lying there, upon which, SI Babu Ram, along with other police officials, reached there. At the spot, they noticed that the dead body was in a jute sack. Photography of the dead body was done and efforts to get the said dead body identified were made, but, no one could identify the same.
11.2. It is the further case of the prosecution that at the spot, complainant-Mehar Chand got recorded his statement to the police, under Section 154 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CrPC’), disclosing therein that he is resident of Village Handa Khundi, Nalagarh, District Solan and is a contractor. His wife is Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Saned.
11.3. As per the statement, on 22.02.2021, at about 08:00 am, when, complainant was present at his house, some unknown person had informed him that a dead body of a boy, aged about 12-13 years, is found lying, upon which, he has informed the police and also reached at the spot and found that the dead body was lying in the bushes. When, the dead body was inspected, then, the same was found to be dead body of a person, aged between 20-25 years. There was a black coloured cloth around the neck and other body wounds were also noticed. On the waist of the dead body, there was amulet.
11.4. On the basis of above facts, police has registered the FIR and criminal
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and prolonged detention without trial is impermissible.
Prolonged pre-trial detention over 4 years with trial delay and co-accused on bail violates right to speedy trial under Article 21, obligating courts to grant bail unless risks justify continued cust....
Undue delay in trial (five years custody, nine of 28 witnesses examined) violates Article 21 right to speedy trial, mandating bail to prevent pre-trial punishment when delay not accused's fault and t....
Prolonged incarceration of undertrials due to trial delays violates Article 21 right to speedy trial, entitling bail after over 2.5 years custody with minimal trial progress and no tampering risk.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and significant delays in trials can justify granting bail.
Prolonged incarceration without trial violates the right to speedy justice under Article 21, necessitating bail despite the gravity of the charges.
Prolonged pre-trial detention infringes on the right to personal liberty under Article 21, necessitating bail when an accused has languished in custody beyond half the maximum sentence duration.
PMLA Section 45 twin conditions relaxable by constitutional courts for bail if prolonged custody (over 2 years) and unlikely timely trial violate Article 21, absent accused delay, with voluminous doc....
The right to speedy trial under Article 21 can justify bail due to inordinate delays, despite the serious nature of criminal charges.
Inordinate delay in POCSO trial constitutes material change for successive bail application, overriding offence gravity; speedy trial right under Article 21 mandates release from prolonged undertrial....
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
