Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Kamlesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks bail after charges for drug possession. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding prior bail denials and trial delays. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 14) |
| 3. judicial discipline and rights of accused emphasized. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 12 , 19) |
| 4. fundamental right to a speedy trial necessitates bail. (Para 11 , 13 , 18) |
| 5. bail granted with conditions as per trial delays. (Para 25 , 27) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 195/2024, dated 4.11.2024, registered at Police Station, West Boileauganj, Shimla, District Shimla, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (ND & PS).
2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested on 04.11.2014 in the aforesaid F.I.R. No recovery was made from the petitioner. The petitioner is innocent, and he has nothing to do with the commission of the crime. The petitioner has been behind the bars since 04.11.2024. The petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition, which was registered as Cr. M.P.(M) No. 79/2025 and was dismissed by this Court on 17.03.2025. The police have a
An individual's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 mandates consideration for bail, emphasizing the need to avoid prolonged detention without trial.
Successive NDPS bail applications allowed on change in circumstances like trial delay infringing speedy trial right under Article 21, overriding offence seriousness and antecedents for grant of bail.
Successive bail in NDPS intermediate quantity case granted due to Article 21 speedy trial violation from long incarceration and trial delay, despite prior rejection and antecedents.
Successive NDPS bail granted despite prior dismissal due to over one-year pre-trial detention violating speedy trial right under Article 21, intermediate quantity, and despite antecedents.
Prolonged incarceration and trial delay in NDPS case with intermediate quantity constitute change in circumstances for successive bail, enforcing speedy trial right under Article 21 despite prior rej....
In NDPS cases with intermediate contraband quantity, over one-year incarceration and trial delay violate Article 21 speedy trial right, entitling bail despite antecedents as State cannot oppose on cr....
Prolonged trial delay in NDPS intermediate quantity case violates speedy trial right under Article 21, constituting change in circumstances for successive bail despite prior rejections and antecedent....
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and prolonged detention without trial justifies bail, even with prior convictions.
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
