Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA
Ashok Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of charas recovery and arrest. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's disability and lack of knowledge arguments. (Para 3) |
| 3. court notes disability but emphasizes trial delay. (Para 5) |
| 4. speedy trial right under article 21 overrides rigours. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. bail is rule; delay violates liberty rights. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. bail granted subject to conditions and caveats. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Bail petitioner namely Ashok Kumar, who is behind bars since 25.10.2023, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.148 of 2023, dated 25.10.2023, under Sections 20 and 29 of ND & PS Act, registered at Police Station Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P. Pursuant to order dated 11.09.2025, respondent- State has filed the status report and SI Raj Kumar has come present with record. Record perused and returned.
2. Close scrutiny of record/status report made available to this Court reveals that on 25.10.2023 at 04:30 a.m., police party present near link road Gona Dhaneta received a secret in
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.
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.
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.
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 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....
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.
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 a fundamental right under Article 21, and delays in trial can justify bail, even in serious offenses involving commercial quantities of narcotics.
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.
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
