Dismissed

Sanjay Singh @ Bachcha v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Mar 2023BAIL/1477/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this fourth and abandoned bail application, no representative appeared as the applicant lost interest. The court perused the record itself, citing Supreme Court precedent against delaying justice, and dismissed the application as infructuous due to extensive delay.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed as infructuous due to prolonged pendency and lack of representation.

Sanjay Singh @ Bachcha Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1477 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Sanjay Singh @ Bachcha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised. None has appeared to press the bail application. Learned AGA for the State is present. In the circumstances, I myself have perused the record.

¶6

This is the fourth bail application on behalf of the applicant. The third bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 28.8.2017. The instant bail application was filed in the year 2018 and continuously no one is present on behalf of the applicant in Court since last several dates. On 25.01.2023, no one was present to press the bail application and the case was fixed peremptorily for today. Mere pendency of the bail application cannot accrue any right in favour of the applicant. It cannot be allowed to swing years together in the cloak of pendency.

¶7

The Apex Court in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal, (2021) 12 SCC 612 has categorically held that courts shall not grant the adjournments in routine manner and mechanically and shall not be a party to cause for delay in dispensing the justice. The relevant para-9 reads as under:

¶8

"9. Today the judiciary and the justice delivery system is facing acute problem of delay which ultimately affects the right of the litigant to access to justice and the speedy trial. Arrears are mounting because of such delay and dilatory tactics and asking repeated adjournments by the advocates and mechanically and in routine manner granted by the courts. It cannot be disputed that due to delay in access to justice and not getting the timely justice it may shaken the trust and confidence of the litigants in the justice delivery system. Many a time, the task of adjournments is used to kill justice. Repeated adjournments break the back of the litigants. The courts are enjoined upon to perform their duties with the object of strengthening the confidence of common man in the institution entrusted with the administration of justice. Any effort which weakens the system and shake the faith of the common man in the justice dispensation has to be discouraged. Therefore the courts shall not grant the adjournments in routine manner and mechanically and shall not be a party to cause for delay in dispensing the justice. The courts have to be diligent and take timely action in order to usher in efficient justice dispensation system and maintain faith in rule of law."

¶9

It appears that either the trial has concluded or the applicant has lost interest in pursuing the matter. Therefore, by the efflux of time, it seems to have been rendered infructuous.

¶10

The application is accordingly dismissed .

¶11

Order Date :- 2.3.2023 Vikas

¶12

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjay Singh @ Bachcha v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Singh @ Bachcha 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tarzen Shaw Vs State of U.P.

Shambhu Nath Prajapati and Another Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Bahadur Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sandeep @ Chandan Nishad Vs State of U.P.

rambabu @ babu ji Vs State of U.P.