Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 461

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Sonu Sahani - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 566 of 2025
Decided On : 30-04-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.

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.

Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 454, 380, and 34 - Bail application - Petitioner arrested for theft and house breaking - Petitioner is the sole earner for his family, including young children and an ailing father - Co-accused released on bail - Prosecution has cited fourteen witnesses, of which only seven have been examined, indicating a lengthy trial ahead - Court emphasizes the right to a speedy trial as a constitutional right under Article 21 - Previous bail application dismissed due to lack of changed circumstances - Court finds that the petitioner’s continued incarceration is unjustified given the delay in trial and the nature of the offences. (Paras 1, 14, 20, 24)

(B) Right to Speedy Trial - The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution - Inordinate delay in trial can justify the grant of bail, regardless of the seriousness of the charges - Courts must ensure that the accused are not subjected to prolonged detention without trial. (Paras 15, 19, 21)

JUDGMENT :

(Rakesh Kainthla, J.)

The petitioner has filed the presnt petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide F.I.R. No. 257 of 2023, dated 01.12.2023, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 454, and 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ), registered at Police West Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. The petitioner was arrested on 2.12.2023. The matter is listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses. The custody of the petitioner is not required. The petitioner is the sole earner of the family. He has his wife, three-year-old son, five-year-old daughter and an aged ailing father, who are dependent upon him. Co-accused Gopal has been released on bail by the Court. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the present petition.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report, asserting that the informant made a complaint that he had gone out of his home on 01.12.2023 and when he returned, he saw that the windowpane of his house was broken. He checked articles lying inside the house and found that cash of Rs.40,000/- and seven bronze plates were missing. The police conducted the investigation and recovered a square pipe. The police checked the CCTV camera in the vicinity and found that two people were going towards the informant’s house. They were seen carrying something in a ‘Boru’ after some time. The police seized the CCTV footage. The police showed photographs of those persons to the people of the vicinity, and they were identified as Gopal and Sonu (the present petitioner). Police arrested the petitioner on 02.12.2023 at the bus stand. He was about to leave Shimla along with his family for his native place. Petitioner made a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and got the plates recovered, which were identified by the informant. The accused did not provide any information regarding Rs.40,000/-. CCTV footage was sent to SFSL, Junga. The report of analysis states that the photographs in the video file matched with the photographs of the petitioner and the co-accused. F.I.R. No.15 of 2011 dated 28.01.2011 for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC at Police Station Sadar, Shimla; F.I.R. No.35 of 2011 dated 18.02.2011 for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC at Police Sadar, Shimla, F.I.R. No. 53 of 2013 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 454 , 380 of IPC at Police Station Chhotta Shimla, H.P. and F.I.R. No. 83 of 2014 dated 12.06.2014 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 454, 380, 511 of IPC at Police Station Dhalli were registered against the petitioner. The petitioner belongs to a different State, and he would abscond in case of release on bail. The charge sheet was filed before the Court on 30.11.2023, and a supplementary charge sheet was filed on 01.04.2024. Fourteen witnesses have been cited by the prosecution, out of whom seven have been examined. The matter was listed for prosecution witnesses on 03.04.2025. Hence, the status report.

3. I have heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

4. Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since December 2023. The prosecution has only examined seven witnesses out of the fourteen cited by the prosecution. There is no likelihood of an early conclusion of the trial. Keeping in view the nature of the offences, the petitioner be released on bail.

5. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner has criminal antecedents. Four FIRs were registered against him. He is a resident of different State, and he would abscon