Himachal Pradesh High Court
Simarpreet Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 5 July, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No. 602 of 2024
.
Date of Decision:05.07.2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simarpreet Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ...Respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Petitioner: Mr. Romesh Verma, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Sumeet Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal
Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of instant petition, very innocuous prayer has
been made on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of direction to the
learned Court below to conclude the trial expeditiously, which is
pending adjudication since the year 2017, as a result thereof, great
prejudice is being caused to the petitioner.
2. While putting appearance on behalf of the respondent-
State, learned Additional Advocate General states that he is not
averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner
and this Court may pass appropriate orders.
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
3. Having heard learned counsel representing the
petitioner and perused the averments contained in the petition,
.
which is duly supported by an affidavit, this Court finds that a case
under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC, registered against the
petitioner on 08.09.2016 arising out of FIR No.162 of 2016,
registered at police Station Amb, District Una, Himachal Pradesh,
is pending adjudication for more than eight years. For the last six
years, matter is being adjourned repeatedly, enabling prosecution
to lead evidence, but on one pretext or other evidence is being not
led, as result of which, trial is being delayed. Needless to say,
delay in conclusion of the proceedings is held to be violation of
fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, which specifically talks about the speedy trial.
4. Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Umarmia Alias
Mamumia v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 2 SCC 731, has held delay
in criminal trial to be in violation of right guaranteed to an accused
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Relevant para of the
afore judgment reads as under:-
"11. This Court has consistently recognised the right of
the accused for a speedy trial. Delay in criminal trial has
been held to be in violation of the right guaranteed to an
accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
(See: Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of
India, (1994) 6 SCC 731; Shaheen Welfare Assn. v.
Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 616) Accused, even in
cases under TADA, have been released on bail on the
ground that they have been in jail for a long period of
time and there was no likelihood of the completion of the
trial at the earliest. (See: Paramjit Singh v. State (NCT of
Delhi), (1999) 9 SCC 252 and Babba v. State of
Maharashtra, (2005) 11 SCC 569).
.
5. As of today, prosecution has only examined eight
witnesses, whereas 13 witnesses still remain to be examined.
Learned Additional Advocate General undertakes to ensure that
remaining witnesses shall be examined on the date, if any, already
fixed by the Court below.
6. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is
disposed of, with a direction to learned Court below to ensure that
trial, as detailed hereinabove, is concluded expeditiously, preferably
within a period of three months. In case, Court below has already
fixed the date, which is beyond the period of three months, an
application shall be filed by the petitioner-accused for preponment of
the case, which shall be considered and allowed by the Court below
to ensure compliance of the instant judgment. Pending applications, if
any, also stand disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma)
Judge
July 05, 2024
(shankar)
