Back
VIKAS BAHL
Adamayavir – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Vikas Bahl, J.
1. This is the second petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR no. 58 dated 06.02.2019 registered under Sections 302, 120-B, 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station City Bahadugarh, District Jhajjar.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 08.07.2019 and there are 39 witnesses, out of which, none have been examined and thus, the trial is likely to take time and has submitted that on the ground of long custody alone, the petitioner should be granted the concession of regular bail as any further incarceration would be violative of the right of the petitioner enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that earlier bail application was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed as withdrawn on 21.11.2022 with liberty to file a fresh petition after giving full and better particulars and thus, in fact the present regular bail application is the first regular bail application filed by the petitioner. It is argued that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and even in the supplementary statement of the complain
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is paramount, and prolonged custody without trial can warrant the granting of bail.
Prolonged custody and delayed trial violate the constitutional right to a speedy trial, allowing for a second bail application under the NDPS Act.
Grant of regular bail based on the length of custody, completion of investigation, and the likelihood of trial conclusion, in consideration of the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Consti....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of custody period, completion of investigation, and the likelihood of trial conclusion, along with the application of the righ....
Prolonged custody without trial, combined with completed investigation, can justify granting bail under Article 21, even with serious charges under the NDPS Act.
Long custody without trial can justify bail under UAPA, emphasizing the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The main legal point established is that the length of custody and the expected duration of the trial can be significant factors in granting regular bail under the NDPS Act, while also considering th....
Long custody can justify bail under UAPA, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial as per Article 21.
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
