Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court 'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme Court

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
 

Latest Legal News