Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

High Court Grants Regular Bail Emphasizing Right to Speedy Trial in Murder Case Involving Illicit Relationship

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal development, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has granted regular bail to Manpreet Kaur, who was accused of murdering her husband, highlighting the fundamental right to a speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The case, bearing FIR No.38 dated 08.04.2021, involved charges under Sections 302/34/328/201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The judgment, delivered by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR on 10.01.2024, addressed the petitioner's prolonged custody and the need for expeditious legal proceedings. Mr. Yashpal Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner, argued that Manpreet Kaur, a mother of a minor child, had been incarcerated since April 8, 2021, severely affecting the welfare of her child.

The court underscored the importance of a speedy trial, stating, "The foundational concept of criminal jurisprudence is to ensure a speedy trial. The right to speedy trial is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India." The court further explained that this right encompasses all aspects of the legal process, including investigation, trial, appeal, and revision.

The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence, but key witnesses, including Manjit Singh, PW-5, did not support the prosecution's claims. Medical reports also contradicted the prosecution's version, as no evidence of sleeping pill ingestion was found. Instead, only ethyl alcohol was discovered in the deceased's body.

Despite the serious nature of the allegations, the court recognized that Manpreet Kaur had been in custody for an extended period, and the trial had not progressed significantly, with only 15 out of 35 prosecution witnesses examined so far. The court concluded that the determination of culpability should occur during the trial.

In its decision, the court granted Manpreet Kaur regular bail, emphasizing that this decision was based on the duration of her custody and should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case. The court urged the trial court to proceed without being influenced by any observations made during this bail hearing.

Date of Decision: 10.01.2024

Manpreet Kaur VS State of Punjab

 

Latest Legal News