Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA
Ashish Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for bail based on facts of the case. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the seriousness of the crime and evidence. (Para 4 , 6 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. court's observations on bail conditions and rights to speedy trial. (Para 5 , 7 , 8 , 17 , 20 , 22) |
| 4. established principles regarding bail and right to speedy trial. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 15 , 19 , 21) |
| 5. conclusion granting bail with conditions. (Para 18 , 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
1. By way of instant petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, prayer has been made on behalf of petitioner Ashish Kumar, who is behind bars for more than one year and nine months, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.99 of 2024, dated 28.06.2024, registered at Police Station Paonta Sahib, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, under Sections 20, 25, 29, 61 and 85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
2. Respondent/State has filed status report and ASI Dalip Kumar, IO, PS Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., has come present along with record. Record perused and returned.
3. Close security of record/status report reveals that on 22.04.2023, Police after having received secret informati
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.
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 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....
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 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.
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.
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....
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
