Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The present case is an unfortunate occasion where despite repeatedly knocking the doors of the Courts below, there had been an inordinate delay of nearly two decades in the investigation of a criminal complaint.
The Court found that the present matter is not one where wholly illicit pharmaceutical drug had been recovered from a person lacking lawful authority to possess them.
“Foreign Nationals who are facing trial in India are also entitled to Right to Live with Dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. This right has been established as a powerful shield of protection, ensuring that Right to Live with Dignity extends beyond borders, safeguarding all human beings.”
In the instant case, the petitioner was in jail for almost 4 years, but not a single witness was examined.
“The Trial Court after almost 11 years issued Non-Bailable Warrants to the persecution witnesses but till date, not a single witness has appeared before it to give evidence.”
“The accused cannot be made to suffer endlessly with this threat of continuing investigation and eventual trial proceedings bearing over their everyday existence.”
“This prolonged and unexplained inaction by the Trial Court constitutes not only a denial of timely justice, but also a serious erosion of the rule of law and a violation of the wife’s fundamental right to a fair and expeditious trial.”
“The petitioner is grievously bereft of the invaluable opportunity to fulfill her natural and fundamental role as a mother the nurturing, upbringing, and intimate bonding with her child.”
The present incident took place on 4-1-1984, and since then the proceedings have been continuing for over four decades, with the trial itself taking nearly 19 years to conclude, and the present appeal remaining pending for more than 22 years.
“The right of speedy and expeditious disposal of the case, trial is one of the most valuable and cherished right of a litigant guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
“While Section 21(4) of MCOCA imposes stringent statutory conditions for the grant of bail under Section 439 of CrPC, these provisions cannot be construed in a manner that forecloses judicial scrutiny under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
“The record shows that the petitioner (‘accused’) has committed heinous offences while he was on bail in other cases; and he has been convicted in the offences committed while on bail. When there is a long list of serious criminal involvements, the apprehension that the accused suffers from recidivism cannot be dismissed as imaginary.”
“The right to life and personal liberty cannot be rendered nugatory by unwarranted delays in the judicial process, particularly where such delay(s) is neither attributable to the accused nor justified by the prosecution with cogent reasons. An individual cannot be kept behind bars for an inordinate period of time by taking refuge in the rigours of Section 37.”
The allegations against the accused are that he was allegedly involved in anti-national activities but only a mobile phone was recovered from him containing objectionable photographs of arms and ammunition. There was no other recovery either of firearms or any other incriminating material.
In Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali v. National Investigating Agency, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 11185, the accused under various provisions of IPC and UAPA was released on bail by the High Court, conducting a mini trial and determining admissibility of certain evidence which clearly exceeded the limited scope of a bail proceeding, hence, the Supreme Court in NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1, cancelled the said grant of bail.
Delhi High Court: Subramonium Prasad, J., remarked that, “…achievement of universal equality before the law requires the tenets of personal liberty to
Chhattisgarh High Court: Sanjay K Agrawal, J., allowed the petition and granted compensation for infringement of right to a speedy trial under
High Court of Jammu and Kashmir: In the recent judgment passed by a Single Judge Bench comprising of M.K. Hanjura, J., addressed