Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 1837

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J
Rajesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 451 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nidhi Singh
For the Respondents: Ajit Sharma

The fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 takes precedence over statutory restrictions on bail. Where institutional delays persist and the trial does not move forward, the heinous nature of an offense or prior criminal antecedents are insufficient grounds to deny an undertrial the right to liberty.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 354, 354-D and 323 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 - Section 12 - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Bail - Right to speedy trial - When the prosecuting agency or the court lacks the wherewithal to provide a speedy trial, the serious nature of the crime should not be a ground to deny bail, as the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right that takes precedence over statutory bars to bail after a prolonged period of incarceration. (Paras 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Factors for grant - Antecedents of the accused do not operate as an absolute bar to the grant of bail, especially in cases of long incarceration where a prima facie case exists or constitutional rights are violated. (Para 24)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, accused of offenses under the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act, was granted bail by the trial court but subsequently taken into custody following the issuance of non-bailable warrants due to non-appearance. The petitioner claimed the absence was due to illness and surrendered. The prosecution opposed bail, citing the heinous nature of the offense and potential for witness intimidation. The trial was delayed, with only a fraction of witnesses examined over a long duration.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the trial was not moving expeditiously and that the petitioner had surrendered voluntarily. It emphasized that an accused has a fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21, and that prolonged pre-trial detention cannot be justified by the nature of the crime alone when the judicial process is stalled.

Issues: The central issues were: 1) Whether the past criminal record and the nature of the offense prohibit the grant of bail, and 2) Whether the violation of the right to a speedy trial due to institutional delays overrides the considerations for denying bail in serious cases.

Ratio Decidendi: Building on constitutional imperatives, the court held that personal liberty under Article 21 must be balanced against systemic failures. Where the state fails to ensure a reasonably expeditious trial, the stringent nature of penal statutes or allegations of serious offenses will not preclude the court from granting relief to an undertrial, as continuous imprisonment without trial prospect constitutes an infringement of fundamental rights.

Result: Petition allowed; released on bail subject to conditions.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 47 of 2022, dated 13.05.2022, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 354, 354-D and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 12 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 at Police Station Patlikuhal, District Kullu, H.P.

It has been asserted that the petitioner was released on bail on 08.07.2022 by the learned Special Judge-I, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. (learned Trial Court). The matter was listed before the learned Trial Court on 03.11.2025. The petitioner could not appear before the Court due to acute dysentery and fever. He could not inform his counsel about his ailment. The learned Trial Court issued non-bailable warrants of arrest (NBWs) against the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the Court on 26.02.2026 and filed an application for cancellation of non-bailable warrants of arrest. The learned trial Court dismissed the application and sent the petitioner to judicial custody. The absence of the petitioner was not voluntary but due to the circumstances beyond his control. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the victim was residing with the informant and the petitioner was her neighbour. He left the room but continued to call the victim on her mobile No. 7xxxxxx014. The victim revealed the incident to the informant. The informant asked the petitioner not to harass the victim. The victim was present with the informant and her sister-in-law in her home on 13.05.2022. The petitioner visited her home and asked her to accompany him. The informant objected, but the petitioner picked up a stone and threw it towards the informant. The stone hit victim’s sister-in-law, who sustained injury. The matter was reported to the police, and the police registered the FIR. The police detained the petitioner, but the petitioner ran away from the police station. The police arrested the petitioner. The victim was born on 27.08.2024 and was aged 17 years 9 month and 14 days on the date of the incident. The police obtained the call detail record and found that various calls were made to the mobile No. 7xxxxx0014. FIR No. 276 of 2018 and FI.R. No. 139 of 2019 were registered against the petitioner. The petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of his release on bail and would intimidate the victim. The prosecution has examined 6 witnesses, and the statements of 7 witnesses are to be recorded. The matter is listed for recording the statements of witnesses at serial No. 15 and 16 on 23.07.2026. Hence, the status report.

I have heard Dr Nidhi Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.

Dr Nidhi Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was earlier granted bail by the learned Trial Court. He could not appear before the Court due to his ailment. Learned Trial Court issued the non-bailable warrants of arrest, but the petitioner himself surrendered before the Court, which shows his intention to comply with the judicial process. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. The police have filed the charge sheet, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Hence, she prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. He had intimidated the victim and her family members. He failed to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by the Court, and delayed the disposal of the matter pending against him. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

I have given consid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 1837

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLARakesh Kainthla, JRajesh Kumar – AppellantVersusState of Himachal Pradesh – RespondentCr. MP (M) No. 451 of 2026

Cases Referred (4)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J
Rajesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 451 of 2026