Arun Alias Anni v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: August 30, 2024 ARUN ALIAS ANNI ......Petitioner(s) V/S STATE OF HARYANA ......Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

Present:

Mr. Sumeet Puri, Advocate for the petitioner (through video conferencing). Mr. B.S. Virk, Senior DAG, Haryana.

**** SANDEEP MOUDGIL , J.(ORAL) 1.

The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been invoked for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.126 dated 28.12.2019 under Sections 148, 149, 341, 427, 302, 120-B & Section 201 IPC and Sections 25, 54, 59(3) of Arms Act registered at Police Station Mundkati District Palwal.

2.

Custody certificate of the petitioner filed by learned State counsel is taken on record.

3.

Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate, puts in appearance on behalf of the complainant and has filed his Power of Attorney in Court, which is taken on record.

4.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the present petition at this stage. However, he

submits that a direction be issued to trial Court to expedite the trial, as after framing of charges on 26.05.2022, out of total 22 prosecution witnesses only 5 have been examined so far.

5.

Prayer is accepted.

6.

Dismissed as withdrawn at this stage.

7.

This court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that "Speedy trial" and "fair trial" to a person accused of a crime are integral part of Article 21. There is, however, qualitative difference between the right to speedy trial and the accused's right of fair trial. Unlike the accused's right of fair trial, deprivation of the right to speedy trial does not per se prejudice the accused in defending himself. The right to speedy trial is in its very nature relative. It depends upon diverse circumstances. Each case of delay in conclusion of a criminal trial has to be seen in the facts and circumstances of such case. Mere lapse of several years since the commencement of prosecution by itself may not justify the discontinuance of prosecution or dismissal of indictment.

The factors concerning the accused's right to speedy trial have to be weighed vis-a-vis the impact of the crime on society and the confidence of the people in judicial system. Speedy trial secures rights to an accused but it does not preclude the rights of public justice.

end. These principles must apply as well when the appeal court is confronted with the question whether or not retrial of an accused should be ordered." 8.

Further reliance can be placed upon the dictum of Apex court in Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh CRA-62-63 OF 2014 SC wherein it has been held that "Expeditious disposal is undoubtedly required in criminal matters and that would naturally be part of guarantee of fair trial. However, the attempts to expedite the process should not be at the expense of the basic elements of fairness and the opportunity to the accused, on which postulates, the entire criminal administration of justice is founded. In the pursuit for expeditious disposal, the cause of justice must never be allowed to suffer or be sacrificed. What is paramount is the cause of justice and keeping the basic ingredients which secure that as a core idea and ideal, the process may be expedited, but fast tracking of process must never ever result in burying the cause of justice''.

9.

In view of the discussions made hereinabove this court deems it appropriate to direct the trial court to make an endeavour to conclude the trial within a period of one year from the receipt of certified copy of this order.

(SANDEEP MOUDGIL) JUDGE 30.08.2024 Sangeeta Whether reasoned/speaking:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No