Petitioner sought a direction to the trial court to expedite the trial. The Court declined to issue a specific direction but expected the trial court to conclude the matter expeditiously in light of Supreme Court pronouncements on the right to a speedy trial under Article 21.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:29087
Court No. - 13
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1620 of 2024
Petitioner :- Israr Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyanshu Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard.
In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the privaterespondent(s) is hereby dispensed with.
The present petition has been filed for the following main relief:-
"a. issue an order or direction in the appropriate nature commanding the learned Trial Court, i.e. Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Rae Bareli, to conclude the trial of Sessions Trial No.161 of 2021; State Versus Ram Nayak, arising out of Case Crime No. 136 of 2020, under sections- 306, 354- D I.P.C. and Section 66 (E) of Information Technology (amended) Act, 2008, relating to Police StationShivratanganj, District- Amethi, pending before it, expeditiously, in the interest of law and justice."
Taking note of the facts as stated, particularly that the charge-sheet was submitted before the trial court on 27.06.2020 and thereafter the trial court framed the charges on 03.11.2021, this Court is not inclined to accede the prayer sought in the present application. However, it is expected that for expeditious disposal of the case, trial court shall do needful in the matter in the light of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various pronouncements including in the case(s) of Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar; 1979 AIR 1369 ; Abdul Rehman Antulay & Others vs. R.S.Nayak & Another; (1992) 1 SCC 225; according to which, the right to speedy trial is implicit under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and trial should be concluded expeditiously.
With the aforesaid, the instant petition is disposed of .
Order Date :- 10.4.2024
Jyoti/-
Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court should be directed to conclude the trial expeditiously?
Whether the right to speedy trial under Article 21 requires immediate direction to the trial court?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secretary, State of BiharReferred¶10
Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar; 1979 AIR 1369 · Who else cites this
Abdul Rehman Antulay & Others vs. R.S.Nayak & AnotherReferred¶10
Abdul Rehman Antulay & Others vs. R.S.Nayak & Another; (1992) 1 SCC 225 · Who else cites this
Israr Ahmad
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.
Saurabh Lavania
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
