Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)

Dataram Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 6 February, 2018

6. The veracity of the allegations leveled against the petitioner shall be established during the course of the trial. Admittedly, the petitioner has undergone actual custody of 07 months and 26 days and there is no other case pending against him. Out of total of 08 prosecution witness, one prosecution 5 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 03-12-2024 05:03:58 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:158792 CRM-M-42892-2024 6 witness has been examined till date. The conclusion of trial will take a considerable period and further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose and will be violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India including the right to speedy trial, and is against the principle "Bail is a rule, jail is an exception" as elucidated in the judgment of Apex Court in "Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another", (2018) 3 SCC 22.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 35378 - M B Lokur - Full Document

Abdul Rehman Antulay & Ors vs R.S. Nayak & Anr on 10 December, 1991

7. Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not consistent with Article 21. While deprivation of personal liberty for some period may not be avoidable, period of deprivation pending trial/appeal cannot be unduly long. The Apex Court in "Abdul Rehman Antulay and others v. R.S. Nayak and another", 1992(2) RCR (Criminal) 634 observed that Right to Speedy Trial flowing from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial.
Supreme Court of India Cites 58 - Cited by 715 - B P Reddy - Full Document
1