Back
RAJ BEER SINGH
Randeep Singh Surjewala – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Raj Beer Singh, J.
Heard Sri S.G. Husnain, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Sarita Gupta, Sri Ajay Kumar Kashyap, Sri Shivam Yadav and Sri Syed Mohd. Faisal, learned counsels for the applicant and Sri P.C. Srivastava, learned Additional Advocate General along with Sri Vikas Sahai, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of order dated 27.07.2023 and 10.08.2023, as well as for quashing of entire proceedings of case crime no.391 of 2000, (Sessions Case No. 187 of 2023) "State v. Randeep Singh Surjewala", pending before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (P.C. Act) Court No.1/Special Judge M.P./M.L.A. Court, Varanasi.
3. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The first information report of this case was lodged in the year 2000 but the case was committed to the court of sessions in the year 2022 and thus, there has been long and undue delay in trial without there being any fault on the part of the applicant. Further, the refusal of prosecution to supply requisite crucial and pertinent documents impinges upo
The right to a speedy trial is integral to the right to free and fair trial under Article 21, impacted by delays and the non-availability of documentary evidence.
The right to a speedy trial is integral to Article 21 of the Constitution, and unreasonable delays due to prosecution can infringe this right, potentially warranting a quashing of proceedings.
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.
(1) Documents which were not part of charge-sheet, but seized by investigating agency during investigation of offence, cannot be withheld by prosecution merely on the ground that documents sought to ....
The order passed on application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. was interlocutory in nature. The accused persons had not been summoned to appear before the Court concerned. The investigation in the....
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 accused has the right to present defense witnesses in a trial, and the trial court must issue summons unless there are valid grounds for refusal, ensuring that fair trial rights are upheld.
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.
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
