Hardship That Was Not Foreseen At The Time Of Entering The Contract Cannot Be A Ground To Deny Specific Performance:  Supreme Court Of India Transfers Made to Defeat the Ceiling Act Are Void Under Sections 8 and 10: Supreme Court Upholds Decisions Declaring Surplus Land Transfers Invalid Compromise Decree Affirming Pre-Existing Rights Requires No Registration or Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Criticizes Arbitrary Termination and Misuse of Temporary Contracts: Supreme Court Directs Regularization of Long-Serving Temporary Employees Partition During Owner’s Lifetime Invalid Under Mohammedan Law: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Over Alleged Oral Gift and Partition Time Gap Between Alleged Act and Suicide Nullifies Link to Abetment: Supreme Court Quashes Abetment to Suicide Charges Hindu Succession Act Does Not Apply to Scheduled Tribes Unless Notified: Supreme Court Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act Protection Cannot Be Invoked Without Proof of Written Contract and Performance Obligations: Supreme Court Reinvestigation Post-Acquittal Violates Double Jeopardy Safeguards: Supreme Court Victim’s Majority and Consensual Relationship Prima Facie Established: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case Madras High Court Validates Registered Will, Labels Subsequent Unregistered Will as Shrouded with Suspicion Confession Under Section 67 NDPS Act Must Be Voluntary, True, and Corroborated to Sustain Conviction: Delhi High Court Failure to Upload Names Cannot Debar Benefits – Calcutta High Court Orders Approval of Accompanists as SACT-II Compromise Invalid in POCSO Offenses: Rajasthan High Court Denies Bail in Child Rape Case Right to Reputation Cannot Be Compromised by Baseless Allegations: Digital Platforms Must Act Responsibly: Delhi High Court Parity Principle Justifies Bail When Similarly Placed Co-Accused Have Been Released: P&H Court Presumption of Innocence is Paramount: Kerala High Court Grants Bail in Acid Attack Case No Direct Employer-Employee Relationship Established: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Workman’s Claim for Reinstatement Under ID Act Promissory Note Alone Can't Prove Debt: Kerala High Court Highlights Need for Credible Evidence Confessions By Co-Accused Cannot Form Sole Basis For Indictment Without Independent Evidence: Bombay High Court Quashes Prosecution in 1993 Communal Riot Case Sanctioning Authority Must Independently Apply Its Mind; A Mechanical Approval Cannot Justify Prosecution: Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Corruption Case Supreme Court Slams Punjab Government For Failing To Shift Hunger-Striking Farmer Leader To Hospital

Liberty of an Individual Has to Be Protected: Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail Emphasizing Right to Speedy Trial

01 January 2025 4:20 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Subheadline: Court underscores fundamental rights under Article 21, granting bail to an accused after three years of pre-conviction detention.
In a significant judgment, the High Court of Rajasthan has granted bail to an accused, Kailash Chand, underscoring the constitutional right to a speedy trial. The judgment, delivered by Justice Farjand Ali, stresses that prolonged pre-conviction detention violates fundamental rights, highlighting the importance of timely judicial processes.
The petitioner, Kailash Chand, has been in custody since January 2021, charged under sections 302, 201, 323, and 341/34 of the IPC related to FIR No. 409/2020 at Kanota Police Station, Jaipur City (East). The case, pending for over three years, saw only 12 out of 30 witnesses examined, reflecting a slow trial progression.
Justice Farjand Ali emphasized the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. He noted, "An accused cannot be kept behind bars in a pending trial for want of production of evidence against him." The court pointed out that justice must not be presumed to be administered merely on passing a judgment of conviction or acquittal; rather, it should ensure the trial concludes within a reasonable time frame.
The judgment highlighted that prolonged detention without trial completion undermines the presumption of innocence, causing undue hardship to the accused and their families. The court remarked, "Personal liberty of the accused is sacrosanct and quintessential to the very spirit and structure of a civilisation."
Justice Ali referenced key judgments, including Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, underscoring that personal liberty is a fundamental right. The court reiterated that detention before conviction is not punitive but to ensure the accused’s presence during the trial. It also cited cases like Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar, which expanded the scope of Article 21 to include the right to a speedy trial.
The court noted, "While entertaining a bail plea, the court of law is required to consider whether the accused should be allowed to attend judicial proceedings from home or remain detained." The judgment emphasized balancing the nature and gravity of the offense with the right to a timely trial, stating, "The objective of keeping a person in jail pending trial is to ensure a smooth, unhindered, fair, and speedy trial."
Justice Farjand Ali remarked, "Liberty of an individual has to be protected. There is high probability that the trial may still take a long time to conclude." He stressed that the judiciary must ensure justice is not only done but seen to be done within a reasonable timeframe.

The High Court’s decision to grant bail to Kailash Chand marks a critical affirmation of the right to a speedy trial, reinforcing constitutional safeguards against prolonged pre-conviction detention. This judgment is expected to have far-reaching implications, ensuring that the judicial system upholds the balance between prosecutorial interests and individual freedoms.

Date of Decision: 18/07/2024
 

Similar News