Amit Kumar v. State Of Punjab

 

  

  


!"#$ "%&'&#( )*)

 Amit Kumar







  

   
  

 

 
        


 
   

 

 

  !

" "

 #$%& '(  )!

''

*)*' *'*+ *!&,
  
  

 -

 ,
 ".. -

 /

/)



  '0) . /

 +)) .  1     )!

''

*)*'  



.     .  .

 $ . 2 & 3.

 4   

- 


   

5  

 

  "2 5""% 2 2 ')+2*)**,  )'

)* *)**"% 2 2+'+2*)**, '+ )* *)**"% 2 2' +)62*)** ,   )+ ) *)**  "% 2 2' 7+2*)**  ,   )7 ) *)**  

1  



  .  8"  !

"

#  "  $"  % &&% '

(%"& %)*   
  ' +,-. ' /0// 1&%1 //0./0//2 ''& )*

)1 & %" $" &&% ' 3)
  44% ' +/, ' /0/, 1&%1 ,50+/0/,2 6%)1% )* $" &&% ' 3)
  44% ' ,07, '

/008 1&%1 0909/0,,   5.

4" ) 6!  $

: )1 '& %" $"  % &&% '

"

&  44 ;&') ' 759 ' /0/, 1&%1 /5,0/0/, %&; 4

    )'   )+.   / 

 

   

'/ 8 .

   

/

 0. 



"                 2  / 0 9    

 2 .$ :+  

/ . 

   /   2  



/      $      


  )!

''

*)*'

$  .

 2      /  .   

#2       '/  8 .

  

/  0.  / 0 

#8   )63 )1 $"

  44% ' /,-9 ' /0,, ")* '!& '  
  ' 7570 ' /0,, 1&%1 /.,,/0,,   / 2

26) When the undertrial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution is violated. Every person, detained or arrested, is entitled to speedy trial, the question is : whether the same is possible in the present case. There are seventeen accused persons. Statement of the witnesses runs to several hundred pages and the documents on which reliance is placed by the prosecution, is voluminous. The trial may take considerable time and it looks to us that the appellants, who are in jail, have to remain in jail longer than the period of detention, had they been convicted. It is not in the interest of justice that accused should be in jail for an indefinite period. No doubt, the offence alleged against the appellants is a serious one in terms of alleged huge loss to the State exchequer, that, by itself, should not deter us from enlarging the appellants on bail when there is no serious contention of the respondent that the accused, if released on bail, would interfere with the trial or tamper with

, evidence. We do not see any good reason to detain the accused in custody, that too, after the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet. This Court, in the case of State of Kerala Vs. Raneef (2011) 1 SCC 784, has stated :- "15. In deciding bail applications an important factor which should certainly be taken into consideration by the court is the delay in concluding the trial. Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody? Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in our Constitution, not violated in such a case? Of course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail.

In the present case the respondent has already spent 66 days in custody (as stated in Para 2 of his counter-affidavit), and we see no reason why he should be denied bail. A doctor incarcerated for a long period may end up like Dr. Manette in Charles Dicken's novel A Tale of Two Cities, who forgot his profession and even his name in the Bastille."

% 

/.   8 .    

 ; <    

"

/2 
      


                         !

      $  

".

.  .

*     

$   

   .    /   ./  



 



=

/ 

   -

 

  )'

)+ *)* "%%# ( %& % "4%<)*=%"')%1 >%"

( %& % %4'&?

% >%" ='