The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently ruled that the right against double jeopardy is a constitutional protection that can be invoked at any stage of a criminal trial and cannot be rejected merely because of delay. In Harsh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court emphasized that Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 CrPC protect an accused person from being prosecuted twice for the same offence. The case involved multiple prosecutions based on substantially the same fraudulent bank draft transactions. The petitioner argued that he had already been convicted in an earlier case and a second trial violated the doctrine of double jeopardy. While the lower court rejected the plea citing a four-year delay, the High Court held that constitutional rights cannot be defeated on technical grounds. The Court clarified that even if evidence is required to examine the issue, courts are duty-bound to consider the plea. This judgment strengthens the principles of criminal law, constitutional rights, Article 20(2), Section 300 CrPC, and protection against repeated prosecution in India