Dismissed

Karan and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Mar 2022CRLR/2059/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision was rejected but the High Court issued directions for speedy disposal of bail applications and trials. The Single Judge dismissed the challenge to the bail application order and directed the accused to surrender within 15 days for a fresh bail hearing.

What did the court decide?

Accused directed to surrender within 15 days; courts directed to dispose bail applications within one week and trials within prescribed timelines.

Karan and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2059 of 2021

¶3

Revisionist :- Karan And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Nanhe Lal Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists as well as learned A.G.A.

¶6

By means of the present revision, the revisionists is assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 12.08.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge(E.C. Act), Lalitpur in S.T. No.163 of 2018 relating to case crime no.266 of 2018 under sections 498A/34, 304B/34 IPC and section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station-Talbehat, District-Lalitpur.

¶7

Contention raised by learned counsel for the revisionists is that for the incident of 15.06.2018, the FIR was lodged on 27.06.2018. There is inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR for which there is no plausible justification coming forward. However, it is further contended that though, the revisionists were named in the FIR but their names were dropped during the investigation and during trial, three statements were recorded.

¶8

I have perused the testimony given by Km. Mohini, daughter of Ashok recorded as PW-3 in which she stated that :-

¶9

". ममिटሾኍ ततेल मकिमचिन मिम रहतता थता। मिम ससुबह 7 बजते उठ गयሾኍ थሾኍ। उस समिय जሾኍजता जሾኍ किमिरते मिम नहीሻ थते। मितेरሾኍ दሾኍदሾኍ घर किता कितामि किर रहሾኍ थሾኍ मितेरሾኍ दሾኍदሾኍ नते सबकिको चिताय बनताकिर भሾኍ मपिलता दሾኍ थሾኍ। मितेरते जሾኍजता दतारू पिሾኍकिर बताहर सते आयते उनकिते सताथ 6 और लकोग थते। मितेरሾኍ दሾኍदሾኍ सते मितेरते जሾኍजता जሾኍ किहनते लगते मकि पिडकोस मिम शतादሾኍ मिम बहहत दहतेज ममिलता हहै मिसुझते भሾኍ दहतेज लतेनता हहै। मितेरሾኍ दሾኍदሾኍ डर किर रकोनते लगሾኍ थሾኍ जजस पिर मितेरते जሾኍजता जሾኍ नते दሾኍदሾኍ किते ऊपिर ममिटሾኍ किता ततेल डताल मदयता बताकिकी 7 लकोगोሙ नते किहता मकि हमि खडते हम इसते जलता दको तको मितेरते जሾኍजता जሾኍ नते मितामचिस किकी तሾኍलሾኍ सते मितेरሾኍ दሾኍदሾኍ किको आग लगता दሾኍ। मिम रकोनते लगሾኍ। मिम बताहर न जता पिताऊऊँ इसሾኍजलयते उन लकोगोሙ नते बताहर सते किसुण्डሾኍ लगता दሾኍ थሾኍ। मिहैनते अपिनሾኍ दሾኍदሾኍ किको बचितानते किते जलयते किसुछ नहीሻ मकियता बस रकोतሾኍ रहሾኍ। मफिर बगल मिम रहनते वतालሾኍ एकि आआंटሾኍ आयीሻ जजनकिको अम्मिता किहतते हम। मितेरते मचिलतानते किकी आवताज ससुनकिर उन्होሙनते बताहर सते किसुण्डሾኍ खकोलሾኍ। मिहैनते बताहर मनकिल किर भहैयता किको फिकोन लगतायता। अम्मिता नते मितेरሾኍ दሾኍदሾኍ किते ऊपिर किम्बर डताल मदयता थता मितेरሾኍ दሾኍदሾኍ पिपूरሾኍ जल गयሾኍ थሾኍ। "

¶10

From the above testimony, it is evident that the revisionist might not have actively participated in the offence, but the revisionist who are close family members of the husband, remained present over the place of occurrence. This by itself shows and establishes the passive complicity in the offence coupled with the fact that the deceased died in harness within seven years of her marriage.

¶11

There are various judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another (2014) 3 SCC Page-92; Brijendra Singh and others Vs. State of Rajasthan(2017) 7 SCC 706 ; Labhuji Amratji Thakor and others Vs. State of Gujrat and another 2018(15) SCAL 639, Periyasami and others Vs. S. Nallasamy in Criminal Appeal No.456 of 2019 arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.208 of 2019 and the latest citation in the case of Sugreev Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and others in Criminal Appeal No.509 of 2019 arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.9687 of 2018.

¶12

Taking into account the fact and circumstances of the case as well as the findings given by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments, I find that the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge(E.C. Act), Lalitpur in S.T. No.163 of 2018 relating to case crime no.266 of 2018 is perfectly just, valid and up to the mark and do not deserve any interference in exercise of power under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.

¶13

Accordingly, the present revision is devoid of merit and the prayer made is hereby declined.

¶14

However, keeping in view the fitness of circumstances, the revisionists are directed to surrender within 15 days and apply for bail, their bail application 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 :-

¶15

" ?.......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."

¶16

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) :

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

For the period of 15 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the revisionists in the aforementioned case.

¶20

It is made clear that no time extension application would be entertained for extending the period after 15 days from today.

¶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/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.

¶23

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.

¶24

With the aforesaid observations, the present criminal revision stands rejected.

¶25

Order Date :- 25.3.2022 Sumit S

¶26

Digitally signed by SUMIT SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.03.26 16:20:25 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Karan and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karan and 5 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rinku Sonkar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gorakhnath (Corpus) and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Suresh Chandra Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Kajal Yadav Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Vashisht Muni Chaubey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mukul and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others