Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Rajeev Misra, J.
Rajni – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for expeditious trial (Para 3) |
| 2. court's order on application (Para 4) |
| 3. next hearing date (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT :
Rajeev Misra, J.
1. Heard Ms. Muskan Pandey, the learned counsel for applicant, Mr. J.K. Upadhyay, the learned A.G.A.-1st for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, the learned counsel representing accused/opposite party-12.
2. Perused the record.
3. Applicant-Smt. Rajni has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this applicant and direct the learned court of Additional Session Judge, Court No.7, Moradabad to conclude the proceeding of Session Trial No. 28 of 2024: State Vs. Suryakant @ Shanu and others (Pending in the Court of Additional Session Judge, Court No.7, Moradabad) in relation to Case Crime No. 598 of 2023, under section 302, 307, 120B, 34 of I.P.C., Police Station Majhola, District Moradabad within a stipulated period as may be directed by this Hon'ble Court and not to grant unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, during the p
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 under Article 21 mandates that trials should not be unduly delayed, balancing procedural fairness with judicial efficiency.
The main legal point established is that once the examination of a witness begins, the trial should proceed continuously, with adjournments only granted for the strongest possible reasons, and the du....
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 integral to the right to free and fair trial under Article 21, impacted by delays and the non-availability of documentary evidence.
The court directs expeditious trial proceedings in cases involving domestic violence while noting the petitioner’s reluctance does not justify delays.
Since the provisions which engraft an exception use the phrase ‘may’ with reference to conducting a joint trial, a separate trial is usually not contrary to law even if a joint trial could be conduct....
Accused have a right to represent themselves through a pleader but cannot cross-examine witnesses using non-advocates without court permission, ensuring procedural integrity.
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, requiring trial courts to avoid unnecessary adjournments and ensure timely witness examination.
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
