IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J
Mohammad Bilal – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide F.I.R. No. 90 of 2021, dated 16.09.2021, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 87 and 64 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) (sic) and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short POCSO Act) at Police Station Kala Amb District Sirmaur, H.P. The petitioner and the victim were known to each other and they belong to the same religion. The petitioner had married the victim and she asserted this fact in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The victim remained with the petitioner for almost 18 months. The FIR was lodged at the instance of the victim's parents. The petitioner is a 23-year-old boy who has been behind bars for about three years. The victim has been examined and there is no reason to detain the petitioner in custody. The prosecution has cited 25 witnesses but has not completed the evidence so far even though three years have elapsed since then. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose; hence, the petit
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.
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....
Inordinate trial delay due to prosecution's witness non-production constitutes change in circumstances for successive bail, violating Article 21 speedy trial right and entitling release despite offen....
Successive bail in serious offences granted on material change like trial delay and co-accused releases, upholding speedy trial right under Article 21 despite prior rejection.
Prolonged trial delay after two years, with minimal witness examination, constitutes change in circumstances for successive bail in NDPS case, violating Article 21 speedy trial right and warranting r....
Inordinate trial delay in serious child sexual offence case violates Article 21 speedy trial right, entitling regular bail despite gravity if no tampering risk and conditions imposed.
An individual's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 mandates consideration for bail, emphasizing the need to avoid prolonged detention without trial.
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....
Prolonged trial delay in NDPS intermediate quantity case violates speedy trial right under Article 21, constituting change in circumstances for successive bail despite prior rejections and antecedent....
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.
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.