IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
SUMEET GOEL, J.
X (36426) - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
CRM-M No. 36426 of 2024
Decided On : 16-09-2024
JUDGMENT :
Mr. Sumeet Goel, J. (Oral):- Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.51 dated 01.8.2023, under Sections 376 of IPC (Section 506 IPC added later on) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (Amended 2019), registered at Police Station Bhadson, District Patiala.
2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows:-
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 01.8.2023. Learned counsel has further argued that the prosecution is bringing forward its witness in a lackadaisical manner before the trial Court on which account the petitioner is forced to suffer undue incarceration. Learned counsel has further submitted that the prime prosecution witness, the victim, is not turning up despite multiple opportunities having been afforded by the trial Court in this regard. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present FIR and there is no medical evidence available on record, so far, so as to substantiate the case of the prosecution. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the orders passed by the trial Court dated 21.5.2024, 4.6.2024, 5.7.2024, 18.7.2024 as also 2.8.2024. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 15.9.2024 in Court, which is taken on record.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.
6. At this juncture, it is noticeable that the petition in hand is third petition moved on behalf of the petitioner for grant of regular bail. The first petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 25.4.2024 and the order passed therein reads as under:
2. Dismissed as withdrawn at this stage.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.’
7. The second petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 17.7.2024 and the said order reads as under:
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is fundamental, and undue incarceration due to prosecution delays warrants bail.
The right to a speedy trial and personal liberty are fundamental. When a trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future and the accused has undergone significant incarceration, bail should be grant....
The court emphasized the diminishing need for pre-trial detention when prosecution evidence nears completion, recognizing the accused's right to prepare a defense.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.