Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
Vineet – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks bail due to lengthy incarceration. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. state argues against bail due to serious charges. (Para 4) |
| 3. court considers evidence on possession and delay. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. speedy trial is a constitutional right. (Para 7 , 12) |
| 5. past case precedents support right to bail under delay. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. innocence until proven guilty in determining bail. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 7. court's observations on legal precedents and principles governing bail. (Para 13 , 15) |
| 8. proper bail considerations include balancing factors. (Para 14 , 16) |
| 9. court orders bail with conditions to secure presence. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 10. order assures no impact on case merits. (Para 20) |
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Bail petitioner namely Vineet, who is behind the bars since28.8.2022, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under S.483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.193/2022, dated 28.8.2022, under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act, registered at PS Sadar Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh.
2. Pursuant to order dated 27.12.2024, respondent-State has filed the status report and ASI Ram Lal, PS Sadar,
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.
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 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 fundamental right under Article 21, and delays in trial can justify bail, even in serious offenses involving commercial quantities of narcotics.
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 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.
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....
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
