Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA
Vipin Basu – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the bail application and case details. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the denial of bail based on allegations. (Para 4 , 12 , 14) |
| 3. court's analysis on the implications of the delay in trial and challenges. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. precedence of cases dealing with prolonged incarcerations affecting bail decisions. (Para 9 , 15) |
| 5. emphasis on the right to a speedy trial for the accused. (Para 10 , 16 , 18) |
| 6. final decision regarding bail conditions and proceedings. (Para 22 , 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 Vipin Basu, 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 recor
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.
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.
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 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
