Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.32 seconds)
Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Kumar Kashyap & Anr. vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr. on 17 May, 2022
cites
Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
P. Ramachandra Rao vs State Of Karnataka on 16 April, 2002
10. He has relied upon 'P. Ramachandra Rao vs. State of Karnataka' [(2002
4 SCC 578)], wherein, the Supreme Court held that the mandate of Article
21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees right to speedy trial. The
Speedy trial includes investigation, enquiry, trial, appeal revision and
retrial.
Abdul Rehman Antulay & Ors vs R.S. Nayak & Anr on 10 December, 1991
12. The test laid down in A.R. Antulay (supra) is whether the proceedings or
trial has remained pending for such a length of time that the inordinate
delay can legitimately be called oppressive and unwarranted. Thus the
question which arises before me is whether the time spent between
registration of FIR dated 27.04.2015 and the chargesheet dated
27.08.2021 can be said to be of such nature that it has infringed the
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
of the Petitioner. On a perusal of the chargesheet it appears that one of the
reasons for the delay was due to the alleged absconding of the Petitioner.
During investigation, it surfaced that Petitioner, Manoj Kumar had
vacated the rented shop bearing shop No. 2059/5 Mahavir Market,
Chahlndara, Bhagirath Palace, Delhi. Due to this, a search for
W.P.(CRL) 707/2021 Page 4 of 6
This is a digitally signed Judgement.
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
1