NDPS | Mentioning FIR Number On Memos Before Registration Makes the Entire Recovery Suspect: Himachal Pradesh High Court MACT | Once Deceased Is Proven To Be Skilled Worker, Deputy Commissioner's Wage Notification Is Applicable: P&H HC Bank’s Technical Excuses Can’t Override Employee’s Right to Ex Gratia Under Old Circulars: Bombay High Court Slams Canara Bank’s Rejection of Claim Once Worker Files Affidavit of Unemployment, Burden Shifts to Employer to Prove Gainful Employment: Delhi High Court Grants 17B Relief Despite 12-Year Delay Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Limitation Act | Quasi-Judicial Bodies Cannot Invoke Section 5 Principles Without Express Statutory Grant: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Commencement of Proceedings Triggered by Notice Receipt, Not Section 11 Filing: Supreme Court Strong and Cogent Evidence Must Exist at the Threshold to Deny Bail Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court Appellate Court Under Section 37 Cannot Sit in Appeal Over Arbitral Award on Merits: Supreme Court Affidavit Ratifying Power of Attorney Cannot Be Disowned Later: Supreme Court Orders Specific Performance Despite Earlier Revocation Claims No Law Empowers a Corporation to Haunt a Retiree: Supreme Court Quashes Post-Retirement Disciplinary Action for Want of Jurisdiction Mere Expectation of Higher Bids Can't Justify Cancelling a Valid Auction: Supreme Court Quashes GDA’s Arbitrary Rejection of Highest Bidder Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21, Even in Grave Economic Offences: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Arvind Dham in ₹673 Crore PMLA Case Article 14 | ‘Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midstream’: Supreme Court Quashes Punjab’s Modified Sports Quota Policy for MBBS Admissions Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midway: Supreme Court Quashes Bihar’s Retrospective Recruitment Amendment "Imaginary Ghost" - Court Permits Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram ‘Deepathoon’: Madras High Court 353 IPC | Continuing Prosecution Against Citizens Despite Statutory Findings of Police Atrocities Is Abuse of Process: Kerala High Court Court Cannot Compel Plaintiff to Continue Suit Where No Liberty to File Fresh Suit is Sought: Bombay High Court Claim for Demurrage is Not a Crystallized Debt—Only an Unadjudicated Right to Sue: Andhra Pradesh High Court Declared Foreign Nationals Have No Right to Reside in India: Gauhati High Court Upholds Expulsion of Bangladeshi Woman Without Requiring Deportation Protocols

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