CRM-M-10805-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr.No.255 CRM-M-10805-2026 Decided on : 25.03.2026 Parshant Kumar alias Parshant Kumar Singh ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM :
   

 *** Present : Mr. Naveen Kundu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Armaan Dahiya, AAG, Haryana for the respondent-State. Mr. Tejas Bansal, Advocate for the complainant. ***   

  , J (ORAL)
                           !" "#

$"$%    $%$  &"# '  "( $#   )%     *  %   $ +  %             ,   '   )-      ,   .       /                         .             -     .                   -      -   -         -         0         "
$$"$&       MAMTA MALHOTRA 2026.03.27 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh CRM-M-10805-2026 2        1 2 13/             4    5                 -             +    
!"&$"$#%       



$"$      4 *  %    -   4 ,        * %            -  6     %             -    ,  .  4                                  .             44             .-4%    4         4    5     & /              %-    ,  .                  7        - # .4                 %  4                 "$    "      
   8             -        , 5        *  %     -   4   .   -        -4  4     2 $
      MAMTA MALHOTRA 2026.03.27 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh CRM-M-10805-2026 3 (     7    
    % - . 921 ,     %    4%             %    2 $
          :  ; :7   1  ; 8. The foundational concept of the criminal jurisprudence is to ensure speedy trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly reiterated that right to speedy trial is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Speedy trial would cover investigation, enquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial etc. i.e. everything starting with the accusation against the accused and expiring with the final verdict of the last Court. 9. In this regard, reference is being made to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the context of right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India on the following decision:- Akhtari Bi Vs. State of M.P., (2001) 4 SCC 355, Surinder Singh Alias Shingara Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2005) SCC (Crl) 1674, P. Ramachandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578, Babu Singh and others Vs. State of U.P., (1978) 1 SCC 579, Takht Singh and others Vs. State of M.P., (2001) 10 SCC 463; Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No.2356 of 2010, Kushal Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2JJ.) and Fazal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 5 SCC 752
" 2            44 0    ' )%    7 . < !"!  #   $  - %   MAMTA MALHOTRA 2026.03.27 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh CRM-M-10805-2026 4           -                 7         44 0  ' )* 4     7   3-=3
                                                    


 >       ,  4 -        %      -          7        0                     0? @ 0 A  @ %  
$ 2     %  %         

    Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No >  =B 0  MAMTA MALHOTRA 2026.03.27 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh