Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Shashi Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bail petition in pocso sexual assault fir (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. parties argue over trial delay post-arrest (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. successive bail requires material change in circumstances (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. pocso timelines violated by court delays (Para 14 , 16) |
| 5. speedy trial is fundamental right under article 21 (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 6. no victim apprehension; impose bail conditions (Para 28) |
| 7. bail granted due to speedy trial violation (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 68 of 2025, dated 02.03.2025, registered at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Section 75 of the Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested on 02.03.2025. He has nothing to do with the commission of the offences. He is the sole bread earner of the family. The charge sheet has been filed before the competent Court, and the trial has not commenced as
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....
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.
Successive bail in serious offences granted on material change like trial delay and co-accused releases, upholding speedy trial right under Article 21 despite prior rejection.
Inordinate trial delay in serious child sexual offence case violates Article 21 speedy trial right, entitling regular bail despite gravity if no tampering risk and conditions imposed.
Inordinate trial delay due to prosecution's witness non-production constitutes change in circumstances for successive bail, violating Article 21 speedy trial right and entitling release despite offen....
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....
Prolonged trial delay after two years, with minimal witness examination, constitutes change in circumstances for successive bail in NDPS case, violating Article 21 speedy trial right and warranting r....
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.
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....
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
