Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court Mother Killing Minor Children Over Husband's Refusal To Take Her To Workplace Is Murder, Not Culpable Homicide: Andhra Pradesh High Court Specific Performance Of Registered Agreement To Sell Is No Longer Discretionary Post-2018 Amendment: Allahabad High Court Civil Court Has Jurisdiction To Determine If Tenanted Property Belongs To Joint Family Even If Tenancy Order Stands In Individual Karta's Name: Bombay High Court Notice Under Section 107 BNSS Mandatory Before Attaching Property; Right To Property Is A Constitutional Right: Calcutta High Court Post-Cognizance Arrest 'Makes No Sense' If Investigation Completed Without Arrest: Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under BNSS Criminal Courts Cannot Be Used To Settle Civil Inheritance Disputes Over Appreciated Land Values: Gujarat High Court Quashes Fraud Case Accused Must Raise Probable Defence To Rebut Statutory Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act If Signatures Are Undisputed: Himachal Pradesh High Court Passing Departmental Exam Not A Pre-requisite For Grant Of ACP/MACP Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Convenience Of Family And Accused Paramount For Jail Shifting; Trial Court Can't Reject Application Merely For Non-Residency: J&K High Court Litigants Who Attempt To Pollute The Stream Of Justice With Tainted Hands Are Not Entitled To Any Relief: Karnataka High Court Trial Court Must Implement Modified Preliminary Decree In Full: Telangana High Court Directs Partition Of Property Omitted In Final Decree Proceedings If Grievance Is Real But Lies Before Different Forum, Plaint Should Be Returned Under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, Not Rejected: Rajasthan High Court Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due To Severity Of Economic Offence If Evidence Is Documentary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Non-Compliance With Mandatory Duty To Inform Grounds Of Arrest Under Section 47 BNSS Is Impermissible: Orissa High Court Grants Bail Land Acquisition Award Finality Under Section 12 Is A Bar To Writ Petitions Challenging 'Public Necessity': Madhya Pradesh High Court State As Eminent Domain Is Obligated To Pay Adequate Compensation, Not Minimum To Suit Its Convenience: Madras High Court Kerala High Court Grants Emergency Parole To Life Convict To Execute Sale Deed, Repay Bank Loan To Prevent Family's Eviction High Court Cannot Act As Court Of First Instance In Service Matters Amenable To CAT Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court Election Tribunal Has No Jurisdiction To Declare Caste Certificate Forged, Authority Vests Solely With Scrutiny Committee: Allahabad High Court Order IX Rule 7 CPC Requires 'Good Cause' Not 'Sufficient Cause'; Trial Court Can't Apply Higher Threshold To Pre-Decree Proceedings: Telangana High Court Victim Cannot Maintain Appeal Seeking Enhancement Of Sentence Under Section 372 CrPC; Such Power Exclusively With State: Rajasthan High Court Disability Pension: Presumption In Favour Of Personnel If Found Fit At Enrollment; Percentage Must Be Rounded Off: Punjab & Haryana HC Employee Entitled To Second Kramonnati Benefit If Promotion To Higher Post Does Not Result In Higher Pay Scale: Madhya Pradesh High Court Borrowers Can Be Granted Opportunity To Clear Loan Overdues In Installments To Prevent Coercive Action Under SARFAESI Act: Kerala High Court

Conditional Liberty Must Override Statutory Embargo,” Rules Rajasthan High Court in Espionage Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent ruling that underscores the balance between national security concerns and individual rights, the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur granted bail to Vikas Kumar, who has been in custody since June 8, 2020, on espionage charges. The case, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Upman, highlights the crucial interplay between prolonged custody and constitutional rights.

Vikas Kumar, accused of providing confidential military information to Pakistani intelligence, was detained under the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and Section 120-B of the IPC. Despite two previous bail applications being dismissed, the court’s latest decision pivots on the principle that “this lethargic attitude of the prosecution is seriously violating the fundamental right of the speedy trial of the petitioner as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

Justice Upman, in his judgment, emphasized the importance of conditional liberty in cases where statutory processes have been prolonged unduly. He stated, “In such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo.” This statement formed the crux of the ruling that granted bail to Kumar, underlining the court’s commitment to safeguarding individual rights even amid grave allegations.

The judgment draws attention to Sections 437(6) and 436-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 437(6) mandates release on bail if a trial is not concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence, provided the delay is not attributable to the accused. Kumar’s case met these criteria, as the trial had exceeded the 60-day limit, and only two of the 37 prosecution witnesses had been examined.

Furthermore, Justice Upman noted that Kumar had already served half of the maximum potential sentence, invoking Section 436-A of the Cr.P.C., which concerns the duration an undertrial prisoner can be detained. The ruling, thus, reflects a nuanced understanding of the legal provisions concerning bail and the right to a speedy trial.

Date of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023

Vikas Kumar VS State of Rajasthan         

Latest Legal News