Disposed

Ses Ram Thakur and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Feb 2019A482/2893/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the FIR and cognizance order in a criminal case involving thick personnel but disposed of the Section 482 application. Instead, it directed the lower court to decide the bail application within 45 days citing Supreme Court precedents on speedy trial and issuance of interim protection.

What did the court decide?

Direction to lower court to decide bail application within 45 days; interim protection granted for said period; structure quashuation prayer refused.

Ses Ram Thakur and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2893 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ses Ram Thakur And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Manoj Kumar learned counsel for the applicants at great length, 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 charge sheet dated 03.09.2018 and cognizance order dated 03.11.2018 passed by CJM, Ghazipur as well as entire proceeding of case no. 3974 of 2018 arising out of case crime no. 194 of 2017, under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, P.S. Nandganj, District Ghazipur pending in the court of CJM, Ghazipur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicants are SSB personnel. The applicant no.1 is S.I., applicant no.2 is Head Constable, 17 Battalion and applicant no.3 is 52 Battalion. FIR was got lodged by the S.I. Pradeep Kumar Gupta dated 31.01.2017 to SHO, P.S. Saidpur, District Ghazipur mentioning therein that the informant along with three SI and four Head Comstables was going to attend "Court of Inquiry" at Bhilai. Inroute near 'Tarao' railway station one SI Dhandeo de-boarded from the trail and these applicants has chased him. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants is that departmental inquiry has exonerated by the applicants but pursuant to this FIR the police has submitted charge sheet against three applicants. During investigation the fact is unearth that there was embezzlement of Rs. 18 lakhs and personnel were going to Bhilai to participate in that Court of Inquiry and the deceased and the applicants were in that team. SI Dhandeo de-boarded from the train and these applicants followed him in the pitch dark night and the dead body was of Dhandeo found hanging by a tree in the next day morning. The cause of death is head injury. There are certain material on record implicating the applicants in the commission of the offence and the police has submitted charge sheet on the basis of that material. This Court short of measure to gaze the validity and veracity of those material at this juncture of 482 Cr.P.C. and the learned Magistrate has taken cognziance of the offence. Under the circumstances I am no inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the applicants, the prayer sought by the applicants is hereby refused.

¶8

After arguing the case for quite some time at length and pitted against certain observations made by the Court, learned counsel for the applicants himself has given up to address the Court on merits of the case and prayed, that the purpose of his client would suffice, if a direction may be given to the courts below to decide their bail application within specific time frame.

¶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 applicants has already given up that he does not want to press the

¶10

case on merit, 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 45 days from today before the court and if their bail application is filed, the same shall be adjudicated 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 Page702, relevant extract of which reads as under :-

¶11

"….......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 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.

¶15

(iii).......................................................................................................;

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

For the period of 45 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforementioned case.

¶19

It is made clear that no time extension application would be entertained for extending the period of 45 days.

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

Order Date :- 18.2.2019

¶25

Abhishek Sri.

Ses Ram Thakur and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ses Ram Thakur and 2 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajpoot Saroj and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Devendra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Smt. Rashmi Choubey Vs State of U.P. and 6 Ors.

Satendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahendra and 04 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another