Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa 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