judgement
2024-07-19
Subject: Criminal Law - Bail and Pretrial Proceedings
The Supreme Court has granted bail to an accused,
The accused had been in custody since February 2015, and the trial had been progressing at a snail's pace, with only two witnesses examined so far. The accused argued that his right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution had been violated, and he should be granted bail. The state, on the other hand, argued that the charges against the accused were grave and that there was a risk of him absconding since he was a foreign national.
The Supreme Court acknowledged the seriousness of the charges but emphasized that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court noted that the accused had been in custody for over nine years, and the trial was unlikely to be concluded in the near future. The court also distinguished the present case from its previous decision in Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, where the trial was already underway with several witnesses examined.
The court further held that the restrictions on granting bail under the UAP Act cannot be used to deny bail indefinitely, especially when the accused's right to a speedy trial has been violated. The court emphasized that the constitutional right to liberty must be balanced against the seriousness of the charges.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order rejecting the accused's bail application and directed that the accused be released on bail, subject to certain conditions, such as the impounding of his passport, not leaving the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court, and regularly reporting to the police station.
The court's decision underscores the importance of the right to a speedy trial and the need to balance it against the seriousness of the charges, even in cases involving national security concerns and the use of counterfeit currency.
#SupremeCourt #CounterfeitCurrency #BailGrant #SupremeCourtSupremeCourt
Court Rejects Selective Arbitration Under Section 21
12 Feb 2026
Family Judge Exposes Weaponized Litigation in Custody Dispute
14 Feb 2026
Centre Notifies Two High Court Chief Justice Appointments
16 Feb 2026
Deep Chandra Joshi Appointed Acting NCLT President
16 Feb 2026
Debunking the Myth That Indians Lack Privacy Concepts
16 Feb 2026
Whose View Is It Anyway? Juniors Uncredited
16 Feb 2026
Private Property Disputes Not Human Rights Violations; HRC Lacks Jurisdiction Under PHRA: Gujarat HC
16 Feb 2026
Supreme Court Rejects Stay on RTI Data Amendments
16 Feb 2026
Non-Compliance of Section 4 Shariat Act Bars Muslim Declarations Under Section 3: Supreme Court Impleads Centre, UP
16 Feb 2026
(1) Bail – Object of bail is to secure attendance of accused at trial – Over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed ....
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental under Article 21, and bail should not be denied as punishment, especially in cases of prolonged detention without trial.
(1) Bail – When trial gets prolonged, it is not open to prosecution to oppose bail of accused-undertrial on the ground that charges are very serious – Bail cannot be denied only on the ground that ch....
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and prolonged detention without trial violates constitutional guarantees, necessitating bail even in serious cases.
Bail is the rule and incarceration is the exception; High Courts should refrain from imposing time-bound schedules for trial conclusions unless in exceptional circumstances.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right that necessitates the granting of bail without arbitrary limitations when such rights are infringed.
The court held that prolonged pre-trial detention without significant evidence warrants bail under Article 21, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial. Serious allegations alone do not justify denial....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of the right to speedy trial under Section 36 of the NDPS Act and the balance between this right and the rigors of Section 37 in gr....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of the right to speedy trial under Section 36 of the NDPS Act and the subservience of Section 37 of the NDPS Act to the Fundamental....
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.