Disposed

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

Allahabad HC17 Mar 2020A482/9912/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of quashing application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. by granting stay on coercive action for 45 days and directing lower courts to decide criminal trials and bail applications within strict timelines as per Supreme Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

No coercive action against applicants for 45 days; lower courts directed to decide bail/trial cases within strict timelines with reasoned orders.

Ram Shanker Tiwari and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 37

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9912 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Shanker Tiwari And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Birendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred seeking the quashing of Complaint Case No. 11 of 2019, (Rakesh Kumar Vs. Ramshanker Tiwari), under Section 323, 452, 504, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1) r & 3(1) s and 3(2) (5a) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Malwan District Fatehpur pending in the court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Fatehpur as well as summoning order dated 27.11.2019.

¶7

After arguing the case for quite some time at length and pitted against certain observations made by the Court, learned counsel for the applicants 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 their bail application within specific time frame.

¶8

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and after perusal of record, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice, this 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 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 applicants surrender within 45 days from today before the court below and if their 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 :-

¶9

".......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."

¶10

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):

¶11

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

¶12

(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;

¶13

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

¶14

(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.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

It is made clear that no time extension application would be entertained for extending the period of 45 days except in special circumstances.

¶18

The ratio mentioned above is the last word for every judicial

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 17.3.2020 Ishan

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Shanker Tiwari and 2 Others 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Badarunisha Vs Gaffar and Others

Smt. Kiranlata Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ajaz Hussain and Others Vs Additional District Judge Court NO.2 Bijnor and Others

Mast Ram Vs State of Up and Another

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

Niranjan @ Neer Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another