Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
Sanjay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background and charges against the petitioner. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. arguments for and against the bail application. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis on the delay in trial and implications. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. ratio decidendi regarding the right to speedy trial. (Para 7 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 15) |
| 5. legal principles concerning bail emphasized. (Para 9) |
| 6. conclusion and order for bail conditions. (Para 14 , 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Sharma, J.
1. Bail petitioner, namely Sanjay Kumar, who is behind bars for the last one year, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of BNSS , 2023, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.243 of 2023, dated 04.12.2023, under Section 20 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Bhunter, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh.
2. Respondent/State has filed status report and ASI Balraj, I.O., Police Station Bhuntar, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, has come present along with record. Record perused and returned.
3. Close scrutiny of status report/record reveals that on 04.12.2023, Police intercepted vehicle bearing No.HP-01-K-7463, near Banjar, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh and allegedly recovered 1.106 kilog
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 fundamental under Article 21, and prolonged detention without trial violates this right, warranting bail even in serious offenses.
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.
Non-disclosure of arrest grounds violates Article 22(1), vitiating arrest and warranting bail; prolonged two-year pre-trial detention due to trial delays in NDPS commercial quantity case violates Art....
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.
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 is a fundamental right; bail may be granted in narcotics cases if incarceration time exceeds reasonable limits without trial completion.
Prolonged pre-trial detention over two years due to inordinate trial delay violates Article 21 speedy trial right, warranting bail despite serious narcotics offence gravity.
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
