Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.24 seconds)Section 439 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 41 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Mrs. Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 25 January, 1978
Following the
creative deliverance passed in the case of Maneka Gandhi (supra)
which expanded the scope of interpretation under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, the right to a speedy trial was interpreted as
being implied in the broad gamut of rights that are borne out of right
to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21. Justice
Bhagwati further expressed his anguish over the fact that the bail
system of India works on the rusty assumption that monetary loss will
deter an accused from fleeing from justice and thus, it operates
harshly against the poor and indigent persons of the society. The
burden of the period of detention falls on the innocent people who are
the members of the family of the accused. A set of guidelines were
issued by the Apex Court in this case to ensure that the courts
subordinate to each of the High Courts take lesser time to reach a
legitimate conclusion in a trial and that there should be greater
access to bail along with humane living standards for the under-
trials.
Hussainara Khatoon & Ors vs Home Secretary, State Of Bihar, Govt. Of ... on 12 February, 1979
14. Subsequent to Hussainara Khatoon (supra), Hon'ble the
Supreme Court held that the right to speedy trial is available at all the
stages, be it the stage of investigation or inquiry, trial, appeal,
revision and even retrial, in Abdul Rehman Antulay & Ors. Vs. R.S.
Nayak & Ors., reported in AIR 1992 SC 1701. In addition to the
above, it was also held that a time limit cannot be set for the
conclusion of trial as there are many factors that impact the right to
speedy trial and the facts and circumstances of each case need, to be
considered separately. An order for conclusion of trial within a fixed
time is possible in specific cases where the circumstances and nature
of offence demand it but a fixed time limit for all the trials cannot be
imposed.
Abdul Rehman Antulay & Ors vs R.S. Nayak & Anr on 10 December, 1991
14. Subsequent to Hussainara Khatoon (supra), Hon'ble the
Supreme Court held that the right to speedy trial is available at all the
stages, be it the stage of investigation or inquiry, trial, appeal,
revision and even retrial, in Abdul Rehman Antulay & Ors. Vs. R.S.
Nayak & Ors., reported in AIR 1992 SC 1701. In addition to the
above, it was also held that a time limit cannot be set for the
conclusion of trial as there are many factors that impact the right to
speedy trial and the facts and circumstances of each case need, to be
considered separately. An order for conclusion of trial within a fixed
time is possible in specific cases where the circumstances and nature
of offence demand it but a fixed time limit for all the trials cannot be
imposed.
Sanjay Chandra vs Cbi on 23 November, 2011
In the case of Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, reported in AIR 2012 SC
830, Hon'ble the Supreme Court had observed that as the
investigation is complete and charge sheet has already been filed by
the investigating agency, there remains no necessity to keep the
accused in custody for further investigation. Being cognizant of the
fact that the alleged offences were such that if proved, they could
cause peril to the Indian economy, still Hon'ble the Supreme Court
upheld the right of an under-trial prisoner to be released on bail.
Ashim @ Asim Kumar Haranath ... vs National Investigation Agency (Nia) on 1 December, 2021
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently passed a judgment in
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1525 of 2021 titled as Ashim @ Asim Kumar
Haranath Bhattacharya @ Asim Harinath Bhattacharya @ Aseem
Kumar Bhattacharya v. National Investigation Agency vide order
dated 01.12.2021 wherein looking to the aspect that the fundamental
right of the undertrial prisoner to have a timely trial was getting
violated due to long and, indefinite period of incarceration, the trial
court was directed to grant the benefit of post-arrest bail in favour of
the appellant.
Union Of India vs K.A. Najeeb on 1 February, 2021
In Union of India (UOI) Vs. K.A. Najeeb, reported in AIR 2021
SC 712, Hon'ble the Supreme Court upheld the order of the High
Court of Kerala granting bail to an accused and observed that had it
been a case at the threshold, the Hon'ble Court would not have paid
heed to the respondent's prayer but looking to the length of time that
the accused has already spent in jail and the likelihood of the trial
taking still more time to conclude, they agreed that the High Court
was not left with any other option but to release the accused on bail.
The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as below: