Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad High Court Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

"Punjab-Haryana High Court Grants Bail in murder case , Emphasizes Right to a Speedy Trial as a Fundamental Right"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent landmark judgment, the Punjab-Haryana High Court granted bail to a petitioner accused of serious charges under Sections 302, 120-B of IPC, and Sections 27 of the Arms Act, stemming from a land dispute that resulted in a fatal shooting. The decision, delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.S. Shekhawat on October 11, 2023, emphasizes the significance of the right to a speedy trial as a fundamental right enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.

The petitioner had been in custody for over 3 years and 10 months, prompting the High Court to scrutinize the delay in concluding the trial. Citing the principle established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the judgment observed, "The right to a speedy trial is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21."

The Court further noted that bail should not be punitive, but rather a means to ensure the accused's presence at the trial. It reiterated that pre-conviction detention should only be used when necessary to secure attendance at the trial or when there is credible evidence that the accused might tamper with witnesses.

In this case, the State of Punjab failed to provide evidence that the petitioner could influence witnesses. As a result, the Court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to stringent conditions. These conditions include restrictions on influencing witnesses, mandatory attendance at court proceedings, surrendering any passport, providing an affidavit with current contact information, and reporting regularly to the police.

This judgment reaffirms the principle that the right to personal liberty is of paramount importance and should not be denied except in cases where it is essential to secure the trial process. It also serves as a reminder of the judiciary's commitment to upholding the fundamental rights of individuals, even in cases involving serious charges.

Legal experts and advocates have welcomed the decision, emphasizing that it underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding individual freedoms and ensuring that justice is not delayed unduly.

Date of Decision: 11th October 2023

Lakhvir Singh Khalsa   vs State of Punjab   

Latest Legal News