Dismissed

Uday Pratap Sharma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Sept 2021ABAIL/9157/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected the application for anticipatory bail due to the filing of the charge sheet. However, the applicant was directed to surrender and apply for bail within ten days to secure speedy disposal, with specific timelines for case conclusion issued citing Hussain case.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail rejected; applicant directed to surrender and apply for bail by 10.09.2021; no coercive action to be taken till then.

Uday Pratap Sharma Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9157 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Uday Pratap Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sameer Jain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Babu Lal Ram,Virendra Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Sameer Jain, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.

¶6

By means of the present application the applicant, Uday Pratap Sharma is seeking his anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.1155 of 2019, under Sections 406, 504 I.P.C., Police Station-Cantt., District-Varanasri.

¶7

Contention raised by the counsel for the applicant that the charge sheet has already been submitted in the matter. Learned counsel for the applicant has raised number of issued with regard to the veracity of charge sheet as well as summoning order.

¶8

Under the circumstance, I am not inclined to exercise my power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the applicant, accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected .

¶9

However, if the applicant so advised, he may ventilate his grievance before appropriate forum at appropriate stage.

¶10

At the end, Sri Sameer Jain, learned counsel for the applicant submits that taking into account the tone and texture and nature of allegation, that the applicant is ready to surrender within a period of ten days before the court concerned for the said purpose. The offer made by the learned counsel for the applicant seems to be reasonable.

¶11

Therefore, the applicant is directed to appear before the court concerned on or before 10.09.2021 and apply for bail his bail application shall be considered 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 cases."

¶13

To satiate speedy disposal of the cases, the courts below are issued

¶14

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).......................................................................................................;

¶18

(iv)......................................................................................................."

¶19

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

¶20

Till 10.09.2021from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforementioned case.

¶21

With the aforesaid observation, the present anticipatory bail application is disposed off .

¶22

Order Date :- 1.9.2021 Abhishek Sri.

Uday Pratap Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uday Pratap Sharma v. State of U.P.

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

Pawan Kumar Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sarika Rai Vs State of U.P.

Israrul Haque Khan Vs State of U.P.

Annu Alias Sunil Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.