IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, ACJ, VIRENDER SINGH
Gurjant Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
1. By way of the instant bail application, filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’), applicant-Gurjant Singh has sought his release, on bail, during the pendency of trial, in case FIR No. 237 of 2022, dated 29th August, 2022, registered with Police station Nalagarh, under Sections 307, 186, 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and Section 25-54-59 of the Arms Act.
2. According to the applicant, he is innocent and has nothing to do with the commission of the alleged offences, as, he has falsely been implicated, in the present case.
3. It is the case of the applicant that he is in judicial custody for more than two years and six months. According to him, the police has filed the charge sheet before the learned trial Court and even after a lapse of sufficient long time, not even a single witness has been examined, in the case, so far.
4. As per the applicant, the conclusion of the trial, against him, will take sufficiently long time, as such, no useful purpose would be served, by keeping him in judicial custody, by curtailing his liberty, as, it will amount to pre-trial convict
The court emphasized that the serious nature of the charges and public safety concerns outweigh the applicant's claims for bail due to trial delays.
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....
The court granted bail to the applicants, emphasizing that continued custody was unnecessary due to completed investigation and similar treatment of co-accused.
Bail can be granted when investigation is complete, and the accused is not a habitual offender, provided conditions are imposed to ensure trial attendance and evidence integrity.
The court emphasized the need to balance the individual's right to personal freedom with the right of police investigation, and considered the delay in trial, lack of prima facie evidence, and absenc....
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and prolonged detention without trial is impermissible.
The court ruled that the applicant does not qualify as a habitual offender due to lack of conviction and granted bail based on parity with co-accused released earlier.
Successive bail applications after prior rejections require material change in circumstances; absence thereof, along with belated pleas like illegal arrest, mandates dismissal to preserve judicial di....
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and prolonged detention without trial is unjustifiable, especially in the absence of compelling evidence against the accused.
The principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception is reinforced, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial and the presumption of innocence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.