Disposed

Pawan and 02 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC25 Feb 2019A482/4571/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a non-bailable warrant, noting the applicant withdrew the case on merit. The court directed the trial court to extend interim bail upon surrender within 15 days with heavy sureties, subject to conditions. It issued strict directions for speedy trial.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed; trial court directed to grant interim bail on surrender within 15 days with heavy sureties subject to conditions.

Pawan and 02 Others Vs State of Up and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4571 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Pawan And 02 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Dixit,Deepti Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

By means of the present 482 Cr.P.C. application, the prayer sought by the applicants is to quash the N.B.W. order dated 14.01.2019 issued by learned Additional District Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gautam Budh Nagar in S.T. No. 189 of 2017 (State Vs. Sanesh & Others), u/s 364-A, 34 IPC , P.S. Kasna, District Gautam Budh Nagar arising out of case crime no. 33 of 2017 pending in the court of Learned Additional District Judge/ Special Judge (SC/St Act), Gutma Budh Nagar.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have already been bailed out but, after the grant of bail, the applicants due to some unavoidable circumstances, could not appear before the court on the date fixed, consequently, non bailable warrant has been issued against them on 14.01.2019 and their bail were cancelled.

¶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 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 (if the court concerned deems it fit according to the merit of each case) 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 15 days before the court with the condition along with two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in the aforesaid Case Crime, subject to the following conditions:-

¶10

(i) They were given the written undertaking to the learned trial court that they would appear on each and every date without any fail.

¶11

(ii) Any failure of above condition or non-cooperation by the applicants in conclusion of expeditious trial, the trial court would be free to take any remedial, corrective or coercive measures against the applicants.

¶12

(iii) The applicants shall attend the court according to the conditions of the bond executed by them and cooperate in the trail without taking unwarranted adjournments. It is expected from the trail court at the earliest in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C.

¶13

(iv) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence and if their bail applications are 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 :-

¶14

"….......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."

¶15

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) :

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

For the period of 15 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforementioned case.

¶22

It is made clear that no time extension application would be entertained for extending the period of 15 days.

¶23

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.

¶24

In the aforesaid backdrop, learned Sessions Judge/the concerned Trial

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

Order Date :- 25.2.2019 Nisha

Pawan and 02 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan and 02 Others v. State of Up 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

Dheer Pal @ Dheeraj Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Yashoda Devi Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Smt. Renu Dhakar Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Smt. Nihala Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Akhilesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chetan @ Golu Vs State of U.P. and Anr.