District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala 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