Dismissed

Bijendra Pal Rana, Police Inspector v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2025A482/628/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking directions to expedite a trial commenced in 2023, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the plea. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that orders mandating time-bound trial conclusions are deprecated and should not be passed to avoid creating a preferential class of litigants.

What did the court decide?

False prayer for expedited trial directions dismissed; application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed.

Bijendra Pal Rana, Police Inspector vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:4433

¶2

Court No. - 78

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 628 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Bijendra Pal Rana, Police Inspector Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Atipriya Gautam,Mansoor Alam,Sr. Advocate,Vinod Kumar Mishra

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Madhaw Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Atipriya Gautam, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶8

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicantBijendra Pal Rana, Police Inspector with the following prayer:-

¶9

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased, to direct the court below, to decide the Session Case No. 563 of 2023 (State Vs. Bijendra Pal Rana) arising out of Case Crime No. 231 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 342 I.P.C. & 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Meerut, as expeditiously as possible within stipulated time, pending before the court of Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption) Court No.1, Meerut, otherwise the applicant shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury.

¶10

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to pass any further order or direction in the present facts and circumstances of the case."

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant at the outset submitted that in the present matter after February, 2024 no date was fixed by the trial court.

¶12

On asking him to demonstrate it from the order-sheet of the trial court, he submits that he gave a wrong submission in as much as dates are being fixed but witnesses do not appear before the trial court.

¶13

Learned counsel for the State has placed the certified copy of the order-sheet which is annexed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit which goes to show that after 02.02.2024 till 13.11.2024, 23 dates have been fixed.

¶14

In so far as the status of trial is concerned, the case of the applicant is that as many as 11 witnesses have been examined and while placing paragraph 26 of the affidavit it is submitted that only two witnesses remain to be examined. It is submitted that appropriate directions be issued to the trial court to decide the trial as expeditiously as possible within a stipulated period of time.

¶15

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer as made and submitted that the

¶16

own pleadings in application go to show that trial in the matter is going on and only two witnesses remain to be examined. The trial is of 2023 and as such the facts show that the trial court is diligently proceeding with the trial. It is submitted that passing of orders expediting the trial to be concluded in specific period of time by Courts has been deprecated by the Apex Court.

¶17

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant has been tried under a case of the year 2023. On the own showing in paragraph 26 of the affidavit only two witnesses remain to be examined. The same goes to show trial is proceeding diligently.

¶18

A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ali Shad Usmani and others Vs. Ali Isteba and others: 2015 (2) ADJ 250 has held that such orders should not be passed as it places a class of litigants in preferential category. Further the Apex Court in the cases of Shaikh Uzma Feroz Hussain Vs. State of Maharashtra: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 587 of 2023 decided on 10.11.2023 , High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (2024) INSC 150 and Santosh Kumar @ Santosh vs The State Of Bihar: SLP (Crl.) No. 6648 of 2024 decided on 22.07.2024 has held that orders expediting trials to be concluded in a time bound manner should not be passed.

¶19

In view of the above, no ground exists. The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed .

¶20

Order Date :- 9.1.2025 AS Rathore

¶21

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bijendra Pal Rana, Police Inspector v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijendra Pal Rana, Police Inspector 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

Sanjay Sharma vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Karan and 8 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Virendra Pal Singh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Prince Vishwakarma vs State of U.P.

Devendra Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another