Sachin Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

codal formalities, lodged the FIR, as detailed hereinabove. Since petitioner was also one of the persons whose activities were allegedly found to be suspicious, he also came to be named in the FIR. Vide order dated 13.12.2019 passed by learned Special Judge-IV, Kangra at Dharamshala, camp at Palampur, all the three 3 persons, namely Kamal Raj, Sachin Kumar and Guddu Kumar came to be enlarged on bail Annexure P-2). However, after his release on bail, petitioner failed to cause his presence before the learned trial Court and consequently, his bail came to be cancelled and proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C were initiated against the surety. Subsequently, during pendency of the proceedings, bail petitioner surrendered before the learned trial Court on 13.10.2025 and since then, he is behind the bars. Since investigation in the case is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, coupled with the fact that till date prosecution has not been able to examine even a single witness, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial.

4. While fairly acknowledging factum with regard to filing of the challan in the competent Court of law, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency. Mr. Kahol, states that though petitioner was earlier enlarged on bail, but since he jumped the bail conditions, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the trial Court, while taking him into custody. He states that since petitioner is a drug paddler, coupled with the fact that in past he 4 had failed to put in appearance before the learned trial Court despite notice and as such, in the event of his being enlarged on bail, he may not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in these activities.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that having taken note of recovery of intermediate quantity of contraband, learned Special Judge, Dharamshala had enlarged him on bail alongwith other co-accused on 13.12.2019, subject to certain conditions. Though, in terms of aforesaid order, petitioner had been causing his presence before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing, but he failed to put in appearance after

21.03.2020 and as such, trial Court, at first instance, repeatedly issued notices to him, but since he failed to put in appearance, Court below initiated proceedings under Section 446 of Cr.P.C against him as well as his surety. But before same could be taken to its logical end, petitioner surrendered before the learned trial Court on 13.10.2025 and since then he is behind the bars.

6. No doubt, petitioner herein was under obligation to remain present before the learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing and in the event of difficulty in causing his appearance, he ought to have filed an application from personal appearance. However, in the instant case, petitioner though 5 defaulted in causing his presence before the learned trial Court, but he never sought exemption by way of filing any appropriate application. It is not in dispute that immediately after initiation of proceedings under Section 446 of Cr.P.C, petitioner has already surrendered before the trial Court and for the last about nine months, he is behind the bars. It is not dispute that till date prosecution has not been able to examine even a single witness and as such, this Court has reason to presume and believe that considerable time is likely to be consumed in conclusion of trial and if during aforesaid period petitioner is left to incarcerate in jail for indefinite period, it would not only amount to pre-trial conviction, but also violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

7. By now, it is well settled that speedy trial is legal right of the accused and one cannot be made to suffer indefinitely for delay in trial and as such, this Court sees no reason to keep the bail petitioner behind the bars for indefinite period during trial. Delay in trial has been held to be in violation of the right guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India. Reliance is placed on judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Umarmia Alias Mamumia v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 2 SCC 731, relevant para whereof has been reproduced herein below:- “11. This Court has consistently recognised the right of the accused for a speedy trial. Delay in criminal trial has been held to be in violation of the right guaranteed to an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (See: Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731; Shaheen Welfare Assn. v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 616) Accused, even in cases under TADA, have been released on bail on the ground that they have been in jail for a long period of time and there was no 6