Topic
The right to speedy trial in Indian law ensures that accused persons are not unduly delayed in receiving a fair trial, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court rules that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC remains available despite the existence of an alternative remedy under Section 397 CrPC. It also quashes complaints for non-compliance with mandatory opportunity notice under Section 61(2) FERA and violation of the right to speedy trial under Article 21.
Bombay High Court ruled that bail cannot be denied based solely on circumstantial evidence unless it directly links the accused to the crime. The court emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove the accused's presence in the vehicle or involvement in the murder, reinforcing the threshold for denying bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The Punjab & Haryana High Court granted bail under Section 123 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, emphasizing the lack of medical or forensic evidence to support allegations of intoxicant administration. The ruling underscores that prolonged detention without substantive evidence violates the accused's right to liberty under Article 21, particularly when custodial interrogation is unnecessary.
Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that prolonged pre-trial detention-over 17 months-violates the constitutional right to speedy trial under Article 21, warranting bail even in serious offences like forgery and cheating. The judgment underscores that incarceration without trial disproportionately affects personal liberty, irrespective of offence gravity.
MP High Court reaffirms that suspension beyond three months without a chargesheet violates the right to speedy trial under the Ajay Kumar Choudhary precedent. The court directed reconsideration of the petitioner's suspension, emphasizing that prolonged suspension without chargesheet issuance is unlawful and mandates a reasoned order for extension.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that persistent trial delays caused by the state's failure to appoint permanent prosecutors violate the right to a speedy trial under Article 21, entitling the accused to bail pending trial. This sets a critical precedent holding the state accountable for systemic prosecutorial vacancies that undermine fair trial guarantees, affecting thousands of undertrial prisoners in Maharashtra.
Supreme Court grants bail to NDPS accused after four years in custody, emphasizing that excessive pre-trial detention warrants release even in commercial quantity cases.
High Court directs transfer of pending trial due to judicial vacancy, emphasizing timely justice under BNS 2023. Key precedent for bail applicants facing prolonged delays.