Disposed

Akram Hussain and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2019A482/18725/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking quashing of proceedings in a rape and POCSO case was disposed of as the applicant had given up pressing the matter on merit. The court directed surrender for bail application and issued strict timelines for trial and bail disposal citing apex court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Accused to surrender within 30 days; bail application to be decided on strictly time-bound, reasoned grounds with no coercive action during the 30-day period.

Akram Hussain and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18725 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Akram Hussain And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sachin Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kaushal Kishore,Preet Pal Singh Rathore,Sarvajeet Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Sarvajeet Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

By means of the present 482 Cr.P.C. application, the prayer sought by the applicants is to quash the entire proceedings of S.T. No.145 of 2016, State Vs. Akram Hussain and another, arising out of Case Crime No.353 of 2014 under Sections 452, 506, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police StationKadar Chowk, District-Budaun pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Budaun.

¶7

The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants are disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment.

¶8

As per FIR, there is specific allegation of rape against the applicants/accused persons. The age of the victim is 17 years. The statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also supports the prosecution version.

¶9

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced, this Court is of the opinion that since learned counsel for the applicant has already given up that he does not want to press the case on merit, in the fitness of circumstances, this 482 Cr.P.C. application stands disposed of with the direction that if the applicant surrenders within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his bail application 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 :-

¶10

"….......Judicial service as well as legal service are not like any other services. They are missions for serving the society. The mission is not

¶11

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 ensure timely disposal of cases."

¶12

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) :

¶13

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

¶14

(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)................................................................................................. ......"

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

In the aforesaid backdrop, learned Sessions Judge/the concerned Trial Judge is directed to ensure that the guidelines

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 6.2.2019 Sumit S

Akram Hussain and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akram Hussain and Another 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pramod Kumar Nayak Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Braj Pal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikas Singh and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rinku Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Gaurav Tiwari Vs State of Up and Another

Yaseen Vs State of U.P.