Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
Ses Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Sharma, J.
1. Bail petitioner, namely Ses Ram, who is behind bars since 01.05.2023, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, for grant of regular bail in Case FIR No. 76 of 2023, dated 01.05.2023, under Sections 20 and 25 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Bhunter, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh.
2. Respondent/State has filed status report and ASI Bal Raj, I.O. Police Station Bhunter, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, has come present along with record. Record perused and returned.
3. Close scrutiny of status report/record reveals that on 01.05.2023 at 7:15 am, SIU/Cyber Cell, Kullu, intercepted vehicle bearing No.HP-66-6649, being driven by present bail petitioner for checking. Since occupant of the car got perplexed and started making excuses, Police deemed it necessary to cause search of vehicle as well as occupant of the car and after having associated independent witnesses, it allegedly searched the vehicle as well as occupant of the car and recovered 1.985 kilograms of Charas. Since no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua possession of aforesaid commercial quantity of contraband
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental under Article 21, and prolonged detention without trial violates this right, warranting bail even in serious offenses.
An accused's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 mandates that excessive delays in trial should not negate the possibility of bail under serious charges.
The right to a speedy trial is a constitutional guarantee, and prolonged detention without trial constitutes a violation of Article 21, warranting bail even in cases involving commercial quantities o....
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21, and delays in trial can justify bail, even in serious offenses involving commercial quantities of narcotics.
The denial of bail based solely on the nature of the crime violates the right to a speedy trial under Article 21, especially in cases with prolonged detention awaiting trial.
In NDPS commercial quantity cases, prolonged incarceration over two years due to inordinate trial delay violates Article 21 speedy trial right; bail grantable despite Section 37 if guilt unproven and....
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is fundamental; prolonged detention without trial justifies bail, regardless of the seriousness of the charges.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right; bail may be granted in narcotics cases if incarceration time exceeds reasonable limits without trial completion.
The right to a speedy trial, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, supersedes other concerns, justifying the granting of bail despite serious charges and prolonged detention.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and prolonged incarceration without trial is impermissible.
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
