Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
Praveen Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bail petition initiated due to drug possession incident. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding seriousness of accusations against petitioner. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. legal right to speedy trial emphasized. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. judicial precedents on bail due to trial delays cited. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. differing perspectives on the importance of bail duration. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. constitutional rights yield weight in bail consideration. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 7. emphasis on fundamental right and conditions for bail. (Para 16 , 19) |
| 8. petition granted with specified conditions. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Bail petitioner namely, Praveen Kumar, who is behind the bars since 25.01.2023 has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.12 of 2023, dated 25.01.2023, under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Barmana, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. Respondent-State has filed status report and ASI Lalit Kumar, Police Station Barmana, has come present with the record. Record perused and returned.
2. Close scrutiny of the status r
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.
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....
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 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 fundamental right; bail may be granted in narcotics cases if incarceration time exceeds reasonable limits without trial completion.
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, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, supersedes other concerns, justifying the granting of bail despite serious charges and prolonged detention.
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 under Article 21 of the Constitution is fundamental; prolonged detention without trial justifies bail, regardless of the seriousness of the charges.
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
