Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Shashi Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
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 yet. No fruitful purpose will be served by detaining the petitioner. The petitioner is a respectable person in society, and there is no chance of his absconding. He would abide by all the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition before the Court, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 1446 of 2025 and was dismissed on 07.07.2025. No witness has been examined after the dismissal of the bail petition. Hence, the present petition.
3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report 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.
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....
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....
Prolonged incarceration and trial delay in NDPS case with intermediate quantity constitute change in circumstances for successive bail, enforcing speedy trial right under Article 21 despite prior rej....
Successive bail in NDPS intermediate quantity case granted due to Article 21 speedy trial violation from long incarceration and trial delay, despite prior rejection and antecedents.
Successive NDPS bail applications allowed on change in circumstances like trial delay infringing speedy trial right under Article 21, overriding offence seriousness and antecedents for grant of bail.
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
