High CourtsSingle Bench(2017) 06 MEG CK 0014

Mujibur Rahman Laskar vs The State of Meghalaya, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Home Department, Shillong, & Ors.

Meghalaya High Court · Decided on 2 June 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ved Prakash Vaish
CASE NUMBER
9 of 2017

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

27 paragraphs · 546 words
1.

By way of the present petition under Section 483 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure (herein referred as ""Code""), the

petitioner seeks direction for expeditious trial of the Khliehriat P.S. case No. 108 (5) of 2014 pending in the court of Additional Deputy

Commissioner, Khliehriat, Meghalaya.

2.

Briefly stating, the facts of the case are that on 29th May, 2014 the petitioner lodged a complaint at Badarpur Police Station regarding

kidnapping of his elder brother and also stated that the alleged kidnapers had demanded ransom money of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs

only) for release of the brother of the petitioner. On the basis of the said complaint a case was registered as Khliehriat P.S. case No. 108 (5)/14

U/S 364 (A) I.P.C. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the brother of the petitioner fled away from custody of the accused

persons on 25th May, 2014.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused persons moved an application for bail which was registered as A.B. No. 21 of 2014

which was dismissed by this Court on 21.07.2014.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that charge sheet was filed in the year 2014 and the trial is at the initial stage. He has also

pointed out that charges have not been framed for the reason that the accused persons are absconding.

5.

Mr. S. Sen Gupta, learned Addl. P.P. appears and submits that the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner is fully justified. He also

submits that the petition can be disposed of today itself.

6.

Speedy Trial means a reasonable expeditiously trial which comply with all essentials of a trial. It is the essence of Justice System, and therefore,

delay in trial by itself constitutes denial of justice. Speedy trial is not specifically enumerated as a fundamental right; it is implicit in the content of

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The constitutional guarantee of speedy trial is an important safeguard to prevent undue and long delays. The

legal basis of the right to speedy trail is reasonable on the strength of the Magna Carta which provides that justice or right will neither be sold nor

denied or deferred to any man. The procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of his liberty cannot be reasonable fair or just unless that

procedure ensures a speedy trial for determination of the guilt of such person. Justice is not one sided, it has many facets and a balance must be

drawn between conflicting right and duties. It is pertinent to observe that, expeditious trial is part of human rights and basic freedoms from prolong

harassment.

7.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties, it is deemed appropriate to

dispose of the present petition at this stage itself. Accordingly, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the Khliehriat P.S. case No.

108 (5) of 2014 and to dispose of the same at the earliest in accordance with law.

8.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of.

9.

A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial court for information and necessary compliance.