Disposed

Rajesh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Mar 2019A482/16442/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge Court disposed of a Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition seeking quashing of proceedings by directing the lower court to extend interim bail if the applicants surrender within 30 days and disposing of the bail application within seven days with reasons.

What did the court decide?

30-day stay on coercive action; direction to lower court to dispose bail application within 7 days; direction to conclude magisterial trials within 6 months if accused in custody.

Rajesh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16442 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Rajesh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Yadavendra Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Devendra Kumar Misra

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A.

¶6

This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of criminal case no.2693 of 2018(State Vs. Rajesh and others) arising out of case crime no.0199 of 2017 under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Bidhnu, District-Kanpur Nagar pending before A.C.M.M., Kanpur Nagar as well as to quash the charge sheet dated 25.09.2017 in the aforementioned case.

¶7

It is given to understand that at the behest of applicants on 10.05.2018, the matter was referred to Mediation Centre but the report of mediation centre dated 16.11.2018 shows that process of mediation has been completed and there was no result at all between the parties.

¶8

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced, in the fitness of circumstances, this 482 Cr.P.C. application stands disposed of with the direction that the court below would extend the benefit of interim bail (in a given case, it is discretion of the court concerned) as contemplated in the law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. after the applicants surrender within 30 days before the court and if their bail application is filed, the same shall be adjudicated and decided by the courts below with speaking and reasoned order, strictly in accordance with law, in the light of the judgment given by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hussain and another Vs. Union of India reported in (2017) 5 SCC Page-702, relevant extract of which reads as under :-

¶9

"….......Judicial service as well as legal service are not like any other services. They are missions for serving the society. The mission is not achieved if the litigant who is waiting in the queue does not get his turn for a long time"....... "Decision of cases of under-trials in custody is one of the priority areas. There are obstructions at every level in enforcement of right of speedy trial; vested interests or unscrupulous elements try to delay the proceedings"....... "In spite of all odds, determined efforts are required at every level for success of the mission"..... "The Presiding Officer of a court cannot rest in a state of helplessness. This is the constitutional responsibility of the State to provide necessary infrastructure and of the High Courts to monitor the functioning of subordinate courts to

¶10

ensure timely disposal of cases."

¶11

To satiate speedy disposal of the cases, the courts below are issued following directions in accordance with the observations made in the case of Hussain and another (Supra) :

¶12

(i)Bail applications be disposed of normally within one week :

¶13

(ii) Magisterial trials, where accused are in custody, be normally concluded within six months and sessions trials where accused are in custody be normally concluded within two years. (iii).......................................................................................................; (iv)......................................................................................................."

¶14

The above timelines may be the touchstone for assessment of judicial performance in annual confidential reports.

¶15

For the period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforementioned case.

¶16

It is made clear that no time extension application would be entertained for extending the period of 30 days.

¶17

The ratio mentioned above is the last word for every judicial officers for abiding with the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the aforesaid scenario, it would be pertinent to refer the case of Brahm Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 08.07.2016 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.15609 of 2016 whereby co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while taking into account the concerns of most of the counsels with regard to the long pending bail applications at lower courts' stage has expressed their anguish and concern.

¶18

In the aforesaid backdrop, learned Sessions Judge/the concerned Trial Judge is directed to ensure that the guidelines given in the case of Hussain and another (supra) as well as in Brahm Singh and others(Supra) has to be carried out in its letter and spirit, failing which an adverse inference would be drawn against the erring officers and this Court would be compelled to take appropriate action against them, if found that there is laxity in adhering the above directions.

¶19

In the event, the bail application is not decided within seven days as contemplated above, the learned Judge will have to spell out the justifiable reasons and record the same on the order sheet of such cases.

¶20

With the aforesaid observations, the present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands disposed of.

¶21

Order Date :- 13.3.2019 Sumit S

Rajesh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shahnawaj Vs State of U.P. and Another

Imran and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chhotakan @ Veer Bahadur and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shwetank Sharma and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Amit Yadav @ Gollu (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjeev Kumar Singh @ Sanjeev Babuan (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another