Delay In Trial Cannot Itself Be Grounds For Bail In Grave Offences When Evidence Links Accused To Crime: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that the right to speedy trial of an accused, though sacrosanct, cannot be stretched in cases where there is overwhelming evidence of guilt against the accused.“Delay in trial, though regrettable, is not by itself a ground for bail in cases involving grave and heinous offences, particularly where the evidence links the accused to the commission of the...
The Delhi High Court has held that the right to speedy trial of an accused, though sacrosanct, cannot be stretched in cases where there is overwhelming evidence of guilt against the accused.
“Delay in trial, though regrettable, is not by itself a ground for bail in cases involving grave and heinous offences, particularly where the evidence links the accused to the commission of the crime,” Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed.
The bench was dealing with the bail plea preferred by a “hired killer”, stated to have lured the victim to a deserted place and shot the victim point blank. The killing was motivated by village rivalry.
Seeking bail, the Petitioner argued that he had been in custody since 2017 and has undergone more than six years of incarceration without conclusion of trial.
It was contended that the right of the Petitioner to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution stands violated, and prolonged incarceration by itself is a ground to enlarge the Petitioner on bail.
The state opposed bail on the ground that it had a solid eye-witness, whose evidence was corroborated by arms recovered from the accused's possession.
The High Court observed that the case involved a deliberate, pre-planned and coldblooded murder, executed in furtherance of conspiracy.
It was of the opinion that while bail is the rule and jail an exception, the nature and gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused and the societal impact of releasing an accused charged with heinous offences are relevant considerations which cannot be overlooked.
“The right to speedy trial, though a valuable constitutional protection under Article 21, cannot be stretched to a point where it overshadows the overwhelming circumstances of guilt that stand against the accused,” it said and dismissed the petition.
Appearance: Mr. Priyanshu Upadhyay, Mr. Viraat Tripathi, Mr. Amit Kr. Attri, Advs for Petitioner; Mr. Aman Usman, APP for the State with Insp. Sanjeev Kr. & Insp. Dharmendra for Respondent
Case title: Vishan Singh v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1099
Case no.: BAIL APPLN. 2100/2025