Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court

"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