Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Vijay Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 51 of 2018, dated 01.05.2018, registered at Police Station, Dharampur, District Solan, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 353, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
2. It has been asserted that, according to the prosecution, the petitioner had fired upon government officials while they were discharging their official duties. The police arrested the petitioner and investigated the matter. They filed the main charge sheet before the Court on 26.07.2018, and supplementary charge sheets on 23.10.2019 and 13.01.2020. The matter was listed for final argument when the prosecution moved an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), read with Section 348 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking the recall of Dr Sangeet Dhillon (PW17) and Naseeb Singh Patiyal (PW41). The learned Trial Court allowed the application and recalled the witnesses for further examination. The matter was scheduled for the examination of witnesses on 08.01.2026, but
Inordinate trial delay due to prosecution's witness production failure entitles accused to bail despite serious offences, as speedy trial right under Article 21 overrides gravity where detention prol....
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....
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 granted despite prior dismissal due to over one-year pre-trial detention violating speedy trial right under Article 21, intermediate quantity, and despite antecedents.
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....
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.
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
