Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi 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