Disposed

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

Allahabad HC25 Feb 2019CRLR/4209/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal revision seeking quashing of an order granting victim custody. It refused the quashing prayer and directed trial courts to dispose of pending bail applications within one week and trials within stipulated timelines to ensure speedy disposal.

What did the court decide?

Refusal of prayer for quashing custody order. Direction to bail courts to dispose of applications within one week and adhere to speedy trial timelines.

Akhilesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4209 of 2018

¶3

Revisionist :- Akhilesh Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajesh Kumar Dubey,Om Prakash Pandey,Satish Mohan Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Pursuant to the order dated 6.2.2019 victim Namrata is present in Court alongwith her sister and father.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

This Criminal Revision is being preferred by the revisionist Akhilesh against the order dated 18.10.2018 by which the custody of the victim was given to her mother.

¶8

Today the victim is present in Court and on making enquiry as to with whom she wants to go. To this query the victim in uncertain terms stated that she wants to go with her parents. She further stated that her statement was recorded under duress and threat was given by the revisionist Akhilesh. She next very candidly stated that so far as the marriage is concerned, taking advantage of her illiteracy and adolescence, she was got married with the applicant.

¶9

Keeping in view of the statement of victim given before the Court I am not inclined to interfere with the revisional jurisdiction envisaged under section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.

¶10

Accordingly the prayer for quashing the impugned order is refused.

¶11

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 (if the court concerned, deems it fit according to the merit of each case) it is 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

¶12

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 :-

¶13

"….......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."

¶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 : (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)................................................................................................. ......"

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 25.2.2019

¶25

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhilesh Singh 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

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.

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

Dhooram Chaudhary Vs State of Up and Another