Parveen Kumar v. State ( NCT Of Delhi)

$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 975/2016 PARVEEN KUMAR ..... Applicant Through:

Mr. V. K. Gautam, Advocate Ms. Mehak Tanwar, Advocate versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Ashish Dutta, APP with SI Dheeraj Yadav, PS- Special Cell

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

O R D E R

% 30.05.2016 The present is an application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking grant of regular bail in FIR No.239/2008 under section 364A Indian Penal Code (IPC), registered at Police Station Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, after making some submissions, states that he would not press the present bail application, in the event this Court were to expedite the conclusion of the subject trial. It is an admitted position that the applicant is being tried for an offence punishable under section 364A IPC and has been in judicial custody since 31.05.2008. It is also an admitted position that the subject trial is at the fag-end.

It is trite to state that, it is the constitutional right of every accused to be tried expeditiously particularly when he is denied his personal liberty as a consequence of the allegations levelled against him. In my view, this is one of the cardinal tenets of criminal jurisprudence. In view of the forgoing, without commenting on the merits of the

present application, the same is disposed of with a direction to the concerned trial court to conclude the subject trial as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the next date of hearing before the trial court i.e., 04.07.2016, without granting any unwarranted adjournments to counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. Needless to state that liberty is reserved to the applicant to approach this court afresh in the event the subject trial is not concluded expeditiously. The application is disposed of accordingly.

Dasti.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J MAY 30, 2016 sk