Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J
Sonu Sahani – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
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
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.
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and prolonged detention without trial justifies bail, even with prior convictions.
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.
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.
Prolonged pre-trial detention without expeditious trial violates Article 21, entitling accused to bail despite prior rejection, if material trial delays or changed circumstances exist.
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.
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....
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 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
