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....
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.
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.
In NDPS cases with intermediate contraband quantity, over one-year incarceration and trial delay violate Article 21 speedy trial right, entitling bail despite antecedents as State cannot oppose on cr....
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.