Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
CRM-M-13991-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sr.No.241 CRM-M-13991-2026 Decided on : 16.04.2026 Rohit alias Landa ...... Petitioner
Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent
CORAM :
*** Present : Mr. Pardeep Singh Poonia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mukul Malik, Mr. Pulkit Dhanda, Mr. Yudhvir Hooda, and Mr. Dharampal Saini, Advocates for the petitioner. Sh. Armaan Dahiya, AAG, Haryana. ***
, J (ORAL)
!"# $
% & "' ( % )*
) #+ ,
#+
2.
Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner along with co-accused committed murder of one Sanju and also caused gunshot injuries to the complainant and injured persons with an intention to kill them. Hence the present FIR.
- * MAMTA MALHOTRA 2026.04.17 12:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh CRM-M-13991-2026 2 + . + + * !"# " + * * * & . ) * * / + 0 + * & * . * * & )* 1 1 . 2* / ' ' / ( $ '#3&3&4 & ( '#3&3& (& $ /" * ) 1* 56 7 * + * 1*567 , 567 56%7 / / 8 + ' * 5) 9 & &7 * ' + * / / / *
8 $ 8 / * : : / * ( + % / 9* . * + * + / * 8 / + MAMTA MALHOTRA 2026.04.17 12:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh CRM-M-13991-2026 3 - + + . / * * ** . * // * * However, he has not controverted the fact that the complainant and other material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile.
( ./
/
* (
* (
: complainant and other eye witnesses have not supported the prosecution case;
* &
/
'
' : /
* :
:
/ *: (
+
% / 9* * *
+
/
. +
+ / /
) ' " $ #
;*
+ . < )9'
*
/ * *
) ' MAMTA MALHOTRA 2026.04.17 12:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh
CRM-M-13991-2026 4 "
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.
8 )
*
// = * *
5
7
;* . > *' !" ! #
$ +
*
+
;
// =
5
78 /
;*
& +?& MAMTA MALHOTRA 2026.04.17 12:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh
CRM-M-13991-2026 5
!
!
!
4
" / + /
+
=
' =, 3
='@3 "
9
*
** Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No 6 ?A
= MAMTA MALHOTRA 2026.04.17 12:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh