Mere Pendency of Appeal Does Not Bar Eviction Suit – Res Judicata Not Attracted Where Issues Are Not Identical: Andhra Pradesh High Court Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right under Article 21: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Despite Recovery of Commercial Quantity Encroachments on River Puramboke Cannot Be Legalised or Protected Under the Guise of Long President was deemed to know that the property vested with the Municipal Council, yet failed to protect it: Karnataka High Court Upholds Disqualification of Municipal President for Misconduct Once the Term of Committee Ends, Right to Vote Ceases — Even if Name Remains in Voter List: Gujarat High Court Treating Equals Unequally Violates Article 14: Bombay High Court Strikes Down IOCL's Tiebreaker rule Preferring Younger Candidate in Tender Selection Mere Harassment Over Loan Recovery Not Abetment to Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in Vineet Kundu Case Taxpayer Cannot Be Penalized For Department's Mistake In Deposit Of GST — Allahabad High Court Directs NOIDA To Compensate The Taxpayer For Wrongful Imposition Of Tax And Penalty “When Large-Scale Fraud Vitiates Selection, En Masse Cancellation Is Inevitable: Supreme Court Validates Quashing of WBSSC 2016 Recruitment Reopening Based on Wrong Mutual Fund is No Reopening at All — Gujarat High Court Quashes Income Tax Notice for Lack of Nexus Between Allegation and Actual Transaction Exceeding Official Duty Does Not Automatically Remove Section 197 CrPC Protection: Supreme Court Quashed Proceedings Against Police Officials Possession Of A Higher Qualification Cannot Substitute The Qualification Prescribed Under  Rules: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection Of Candidate Without Required Lascar’s Licence Dismissal for Default Without Considering COVID Restrictions Was Illegal: Supreme Court Section 256 CrPC Does Not Mandate Automatic Acquittal On Complainant’s Absence — Judicial Satisfaction Is Mandatory: 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
 

Similar News