Disposed

Ajit Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2019A482/5374/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a Section 482 CrPC application filed by Ajit Singh seeking quashing of an impugned order. The applicant withdrew the case on merit. The court directed the lower courts to adhere to Supreme Court timelines for speedy trial and disposal of bail applications.

What did the court decide?

The application stands disposed of with a direction to surrender within 30 days and file bail applications for speedy adjudication by lower courts.

Ajit Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5374 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ajit Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhai Kumar Singh,Awadhesh Kumar Singh

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶6

Sri Vijay Prakash Pandey, Advocate, has filed his parcha on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

By means of the present 482 Cr.P.C. application, the prayer sought by the applicants is to quash the order dated 01.11.2018 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Session Trial No. 67 of 2017, Case Crime No. 1364 of 2016, u/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 307 IPC, P.S. Ramchandra Mission, District Shahjahanpur.

¶9

After perusing the impugned order dated 01.11.2018, I find no good ground to interfere into order.

¶10

Accordingly the prayer sought by the learned counsel for the applicant is refused.

¶11

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 if the applicants surrender within 30 days before the court 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 :-

¶12

"….......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

¶13

cases."

¶14

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) :

¶15

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

¶16

(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.

¶17

(iii)....................................................................................................... ; (iv)....................................................................................................... "

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶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

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

¶25

Order Date :- 13.2.2019 Nisha

Ajit Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit Singh 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

Gulab Chand Vs State of Up

Rahis @ Rais Qureshi Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Rohit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Zahid Siddiqui and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raju and 11 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satpal Singh and 2 others Vs State of U.P. and another