Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 193

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Sant Prakash Sharma - Applicant
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 80 of 2026
Decided On : 31-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant :Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Swati Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Dy. A.G.

The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and significant delays in trials can justify granting bail.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302 and 201 - Arms Act - Section 25 - Bail application - Applicant seeking bail during trial for charges related to murder and destruction of evidence - No legal evidence linked applicant to the crime - Ill health cited as grounds for bail - Delay in trial emphasized, with only three of the 47 witnesses examined - Right to speedy trial recognized as a fundamental right - Court finds undue delay in trial justifying bail - Bail granted subject to conditions. (Paras 1, 3, 14, 21, 22, 23, 25, 36)

(B) Right to speedy trial - Article 21 of Constitution - Court reiterates the importance of timely trials, implications of undue delays, and the detrimental effects such delays have on the accused's ability to present a defense - Citing precedent for definitions of speedy trial and circumstances warranting bail. (Paras 14, 15, 17, 19)

Facts of the case:
The applicant is accused of murder after allegedly shooting a laborer during a quarrel and later attempting to mislead authorities regarding the circumstances of the death. He claims he is innocent and has been in poor health, citing significant delays in the trial process as grounds for bail. (Paras 1-8)

Findings of Court:
The court highlighted the fundamental right to a speedy trial and noted undue delays in the case, which prompted the decision to grant bail to the applicant, emphasizing that his continued incarceration without trial is unjust. (Paras 21-22)

Issues: The main issues include the applicant's health, the adequacy of the evidence against him, and the significant delay in completing the trial. (Paras 14, 21)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21, emphasizing that undue delays can infringe on this right, warranting the granting of bail where necessary. (Paras 14-15, 21-22)

Result: Bail application allowed, and the applicant is to be released on bail subject to conditions. (Para 23)

Table of Content
1. bail application based on health and trial delay (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 7 , 8)
2. details of the alleged offense and investigation (Para 10)
3. right to speedy trial is fundamental under article 21 (Para 14 , 15 , 19 , 20)
4. importance of timely trial in administration of justice (Para 18 , 26)
5. court grants bail under certain conditions (Para 22 , 23 , 24)

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

Applicant Sant Prakash Sharma has filed the present application, under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’) for releasing him, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, arising out of FIR No. 313 of 2023, dated 12.12.2023, registered under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) and Section
25 of the Arms Act, registered with Police Station, Haroli, District Una, H.P.

2. According to the applicant, he is innocent and has falsely been implicated, in this case, as no legal evidence could be collected by the prosecution to connect him, with the alleged offence.

3. Apart from this, he has also put forward his ill health, as, one of the grounds, to release him on bail, by pleading that he is suffering from spinal injury and the Doctor has advised him to take home remedies, painkillers and physio- therapy. The Doctor is also stated to have advised that in case, the proper precaution is not taken, the problem may aggravate. Due to said problem, he allegedly could not follow daily pursuits.

4. According to the applicant, thereafter, he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh, on 27.2.2024, and the Doctor gave a comprehensive opinion. The applicant had also remained hospitalized, in Regional Hospital, Una, w.e.f. 20.9.2024 to 3.10.2024. Thereafter, the Doctor has advised the applicant the physio-therapy, for about 25 days, at PGI, Chandigarh. The applicant has also given the chronology of his medical treatment at various stages, in order to support his case.

5. The applicant has relied upon the advise of the Doctors at PGI, Chandigarh, according to which, he should avoid travelling and difficult postures.

6. According to the further stand of the applicant, investigation, in the present case, is complete and the matter is now pending before the learned trial Court. All these facts have been highlighted to show that custodial interrogation of the applicant, is no longer required by the Police. Alongwith the application,he has also annexed the medical record.

7. The delay in the trial has also been made a ground for seeking the relief of bail by pleading that the chances of conclusion of the trial against him, in near future, are not so bright, as, there are as many as 47 witnesses and till date only three PWs have been examined.

8. The applicant, through his counsel, has given certain undertakings, for which he is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail.

9. On all these submissions, Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Swati Sharma, has prayed that the bail application may kindly be allowed, as prayed for.

10. When, put to notice, Police filed status report, disclosing therein that on 12.12.2023, at about 1:20 a.m., a telephonic message was received in Police Station, Tahliwal that Sant Prakash (applicant) had shot down labourer Ghoora, upon which, Inspector Ashok Kumar, Incharge Police Post, Tahliwal, alongwith other police officials, reached at the spot, i.e. Sant Rice Mill, where they noticed the blood stains near Sheller.

10.1. In order to preserve the spot, HHC Paramjeet was deputed there. When, Inspector Ashok Kumar alongwith police officials was present, in the factory, then, Raj Kumar disclosed that the injured had been taken for treatment at Naya Nangal, upon which, the I.O. reached at RK Hospital, Naya Nangal, where the Doctor had declared the injured as ‘brought dead’. His dead body was stated to be lying in vehicle No. HP-10B-8896, on the side of the road. The dead body was taken into possess