Presumption Of Correctness Of Judicial Records Not Absolute And Can Be Rebutted By Direct Evidence: Kerala High Court on Married Daughter Cannot Challenge Partition After 21-Year Slumber If She Had Knowledge: Madhya Pradesh High Court Kerala High Court Orders Immediate Suspension Of Lakshadweep CJM For Allegedly Forging Witness Deposition To Convict Accused Supreme Court Bars Post-Divorce Maintenance Claims When Wife Voluntarily Waived Maintenance In Settlement Agreement Advocate Is An Officer Of Court, Not Mere Agent Of Client: Allahabad High Court Distinguishes Between Active Concealment & Statement In Ignorance, Slaps Cost On Litigants For Misleading Bench Cannot Summon Accused Mechanically On Protest Petition Without Assigning Justifiable Reasons: Andhra Pradesh High Court Increment Not A Bounty: Allahabad High Court Rules Public Holiday Cannot Delay Pay Hike For Teachers Joining Next Working Day Paying Taxes Or Utility Connections Confer No Legal Ownership Over Govt Land': Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Demolition Of Encroachment 'Cannot Compel Public Authority To Collect Data From Private Bodies': Bombay High Court Quashes CIC Orders Directing SEBI To Procure BSE Records Under RTI Act Section 10 CPC Cannot Stay Previously Instituted Title Suit Pending Subsequent Probate Case; Inherent Powers Under Section 151 Inapplicable When Probate Dismissed: Calcutta High Court Mere Phone Calls Without Transcripts No Ground For Murder Conspiracy: Delhi High Court Clear Violation Of Section 42 NDPS Act': Gujarat High Court Holds Failure To Record Secret Info In Writing Fatal When Police Officer Had Time To Act JK High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Cop Accused Of Threatening Advocate Over Phone Call Without Prior Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC Custody Unwarranted For Mere Formalities Once Weapon Is Recovered: Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail In BNS Axe Attack Case Circumstances Of Crime Can Be Assessed During Trial: High Court Upholds Trial Of Minor As Adult Under JJ Act In Murder Case Statutory Deposit Under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC Is A Sine Qua Non; Litigant Cannot Stall Auction Sale By Merely Blaming Counsel: Madras High Court Ban Junk Food Within 50 Metres Of Schools: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Moto Cognizance To Enforce FSSAI Norms, Protect Children From Obesity

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