Smt. Kedali and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 80

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2172 of 2020

Petitioner :- Smt. Kedali And 2 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Vashishtha Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred for quashing of the order dated 27.2.2020, 19.11.2019 as well as summoning order dated 16.7.2018 and entire criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.2537 of 2018, State Vs. Munjesh pertaining to Criminal Case Crime No. 659 of 2017, under Sections 504, 506, 452, 323, 325, 427 I.P.C., Police Station Ramkola, District Kushinagar.

¶7

The contention of counsel for the petitioners is that no offence against the petitioners is disclosed and the present case has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has also pointed out certain documents in support of his contention.

¶8

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioners. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶9

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

¶10

At this stage, disputed question of fact cannot be considered, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283, the prayer for quashing the summoning order and the entire criminal proceedings are refused.

¶11

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and after perusal of record, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice, this petition 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 the case) as contemplated in the law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC), after the petitioner surrenders within 45 days from today before the

¶12

court below and if his bail 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, (2017) 5 SCC 702, relevant extract of the above judgment is quoted 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;

¶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) Efforts be made to dispose of all cases which are five years old by the end of the year;

¶18

(iv) As a supplement to Section 436-A, but consistent with the spirit thereof, if an undertrial has completed period of custody in excess of the sentence likely to be awarded if conviction is recorded such under-trial must be released on personal bond. Such an assessment must be made by the trial courts concerned from time to time.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶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 and 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, further this Court hope and trust that there is no laxity in adhering the above directions.

¶23

It is clarified in the interest of justice that the bail application is not decided within seven days from the date of filing 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 petition, under Article 227 of

¶25

the Constitution of India stands disposed of.

¶26

Order Date :- 22.6.2020

¶27

SFH

Smt. Kedali and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kedali and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mast Ram Vs State of Up and Another

Ram Janam Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ram Shanker Tiwari and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dev Narain and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Km. Shobha and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rashid Ali Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others