Back
NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Ravindra – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.-Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking a suitable direction to the learned Additional District Judge-1, District-Muzaffar Nagar to decide the Sessions Trial No. 924 of 2011 arising out of Case Crime No. 20 of 2011 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 302, 506 I.P.C., P.S.-Kakrauli, District-Muzaffarnagar as expeditiously as possible within stipulated time.
3. The prosecution case as culled out from the FIR is that on 3.2.2011 at about 3.00 pm an altercation took place between the brother of complainant Shokendra and his villagers Anuj, Rajendra and his family members. Thereafter at about 6.00 pm., the accused persons namely Rajendra, Ramchandra, Bhopal, Anuj, Rajeev and Amit with intention to kill, attacked with firearms on the brothers of the applicant namely Shokendra and Subhash as well as his nephews namely Sachin and Jagpal, in which the brother of the applicant Shokendra died on the way of hospital, while others sustained grievous injuries. With regard to the aforesaid incident, the applicant immediately on the same day at about
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental for both the accused and the victim, necessitating timely judicial proceedings.
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental under Article 21, emphasizing the need for courts to avoid undue delays and not show leniency towards accused in serious crimes.
The right to a speedy trial is constitutionally guaranteed and must be upheld, with courts required to take proactive measures to prevent undue delays in criminal proceedings.
The court emphasized the necessity of timely trial proceedings to prevent evidence tampering and directed Jail Authorities to ensure the presence of accused during trials.
The right to a speedy trial is constitutionally protected under Article 21, and unreasonable delays, particularly when not caused by the accused, can warrant quashing ongoing criminal proceedings.
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is fundamental and must be upheld, with inordinate delays in prosecution warranting quashing of proceedings.
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is fundamental, and inordinate delays in criminal proceedings can lead to quashing of the prosecution.
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental under Article 21, and significant delays in filing complaints can undermine their credibility and warrant quashing of proceedings.
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
