The High Court, concerned over a delay of over two years in the trial of a criminal case involving detention of the petitioner, directed the trial court to expedite proceedings by issuing short dates of hearing.
Direction to the trial court to disposes of the trial expeditiously by granting short dates of hearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRM-M-20724-2012 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-20724-2012 (O&M). Date of decision: December 12, 2012.
Umar Mohd.
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
.... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI
PRESENT Mr.Sunil Panwar, Adv. for the petitioner.
Ms.Tanushree Gupta, AAG., Haryana.
Mr.Sanjay Vashisth, Adv., for the complainant.
M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner as a member of an unlawful assembly
armed with lathi is alleged to have given a blow on the head of deceased Yakoob.
Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that two persons i.e., Sohrab and the petitioner have been attributed one injury on the head which has been reflected in the medical evidence.
It has been argued that Sohrab has been found innocent by the the Investigating Agency opting to omit him as an accused while presenting challan in the Court.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
1
CRM-M-20724-2012 (O&M)
who has vehemently urged that there was likelihood of tampering of evidence, but now the complainant who is the real brother of the deceased and other eye witness stand examined. Chance of threatening or inducing any witness is remote.
On account of petitioner having been attributed injury on the head of the deceased, it will not be fair to appreciate the evidence, at this stage or enter into niceties of the trial to determine the culpability of the petitioner but feeling concerned with the period of 2 years 7 months which have already elapsed, during the course of trial in which the petitioner remained in custody, it is deemed appropriate, in the interest of justice, to issue a direction to the trial Court to expeditiously dispose of the trial by giving short dates of hearing.
Dismissed at this stage.
(M.M.S. BEDI) December 12, 2012. JUDGE rka
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the delay in trial and custodial detention warrants expediting the trial process.
Umar Mohd.
State of Haryana
M.M.S. BEDI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
