MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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