Single Bench granted interim bail to the revisionist who gave up his case on merits. It directed the lower court to dispose of the bail application within seven days citing Supreme Court precedent on speedy trial and judicial performance.
Direction to lower court to dispose of bail application within seven days; interim bail extended for 30 days.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 701 of 2019
Revisionist :- Rahul Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anothe Counsel for Revisionist :- Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
The present revision is targeted against order dated 27.11.2018 by which the discharge application with the revisionist has been rejected by Special Judge, Mau.
Submitted by the counsel that on the basis of singular case offence under Section Gangster Act has been fasten upon him.
After arguing the case for quite some time at length and pitted against certain observations made by the Court, learned counsel for the revisionist 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 his bail application within specific time frame.
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 revisionist 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 (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 revisionist surrender within 30 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 :-
"….......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."
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) :
(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)......................................................................................................."
The above timelines may be the touchstone for assessment of judicial performance in annual confidential reports.
For the period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the revisionist in the aforementioned case.
It is made clear that no time extension application would be entertained for extending the period of 30 days.
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.
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.
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.
Order Date :- 11.3.2019
Abhishek Sri.
2 issues framed by the court
What direction should be issued to lower courts regarding the disposal of pending bail applications?
Whether the trial court should extend interim bail to the revisionist pending disposal of his bail application?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶9
2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶9
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Hussain and another Vs. Union of IndiaApplied¶9
(2017) 5 SCC Page702 · Who else cites this
Brakh Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and othersReferred¶19
Brakh Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others
Rahul Kumar
State Of U.P.
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
