Dismissed

Ajay Chauhan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Jan 2025BAIL/1431/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application by the accused hired shooter in a murder and criminal conspiracy case was dismissed on grounds of gravity of offence and likelihood of his having committed it. The court separately directed the trial court to conclude the trial within about one year, with directions to police to serve summons and execute warrants promptly.

What did the court decide?

Bail denied; trial directed to be expedited within a year with summons/warrant execution and monitoring directions.

Ajay Chauhan vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:12928

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1431 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Ajay Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

Matter is taken up in the revised call.

¶7

By means of the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 112 of 2024 at Police Station-Bhimpura, District-Ballia under Sections 302, 120B IPC. The applicant is in jail since 05.07.2024.

¶8

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by trial court on 02.12.2024.

¶9

The applicant who is the professional shooter has been identified as the principal offender who was paid money to commit the crime. Money was transferred to the bank account of the applicant. The offence is grave. There is likelihood that the applicant committed the offence. At this stage, no case for bail is made out. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from the other co-accused persons who have been enlarged on bail.

¶10

Without going into the merits of the case, the bail application is dismissed.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the trial is moving at a snail's pace and shows no sign of early conclusion. The applicant is not responsible for the delay in the trial proceedings. The prosecution is deliberately delaying the conduct of the trial to prolong the incarceration of the applicant. Inordinate delay in concluding trial will to an indefinite detention of the applicant. Various other aspects which cause delays in trials in the State of Uttar Pradesh have been highlighted. The submissions of the learned counsel are well founded and are liable to be addressed.

¶12

The learned trial court has to faithfully implement the legislative mandate of Section 309 Cr.P.C. The learned trial court is also under an obligation of law to realize the fundamental rights of an accused to a speedy trial.

¶13

Considering the gravity of the offence, interest of justice will be served by directing the learned trial court to expedite the trial.

¶14

Though no specific time frame to conclude the trial has been set out in the Cr.P.C., yet the legislative intent of Section 309 Cr.P.C. is explicit. The scheme of the provision clearly shows that the legislative intent is to conclude the trial in an expeditious time frame. In the facts of this case, the learned trial court shall make all endeavours to conclude the trial expeditiously. Preferably the trial court shall set for itself a reasonable time frame to

¶15

conclude the trial say one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶16

All witnesses and counsels are directed to cooperate with the trial proceedings.

¶17

The learned trial court shall issue summons by regular process as per Section 62 Cr.P.C. and also by registered post as provided under Section 69 Cr.P.C. to expedite the trial.

¶18

The learned trial court shall promptly take out all strict coercive measures against all the witnesses in accordance with law who fail to appear in the trial proceeding. Counsels or parties who delay or impede the proceedings should not only be discouraged from doing so but in appropriate cases exemplary costs should also be imposed on such parties/ counsel.

¶19

The police authorities shall ensure that warrants or any coercive measures as per law taken out by the learned trial court to ensure that the attendance of the witnesses are promptly executed.

¶20

The Superintendent of Police, Ballia shall file an affidavit before the trial court on the date fixed regarding status of execution of the warrants/service of summons taken out by the learned trial court.

¶21

The delay in the trials caused by the failure of the police authorities to serve summons or execute coercive

¶22

measures to compel the appearance of witnesses at the trial despite a statutory mandate, is an issue of grave concern. The said issue had arisen for consideration before this Court in Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir Vs. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16871 of 2023) & Jitendra v. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9126 of 2023) . This Court in Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir (supra) & Jitendra (supra) had issued certain directions to the police authorities regarding their statutory duty to promptly serve summons and execute coercive processes to compel the appearance of witnesses.

¶23

The Director General of Police, Government of U.P. as well as Principal Secretary (Home), Government of U.P. had taken out relevant orders in compliance of judgements in Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir (supra) & Jitendra (supra) and nominated the Senior Superintendent of Police of the concerned districts as the nodal officials for implementing the said judgments.

¶24

The counsels as well as the learned trial court are directed to comply with the directions issued by this Court in Noor Alam Vs. State of U.P. rendered in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 53159 of 2021 . In case any strike happens during the course of the trial, the learned trial court is directed to ensure full compliance of the directions issued in Noor Alam (supra) to prevent delay

¶25

in the trial.

¶26

In case the police authorities are failing to comply with the directions issued by this Court in Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir (supra) & Jitendra (supra) and do not implement the said directions of the Director General of Police, Government of U.P. & the Home Secretary, Government of U.P. in regard to service of summons and execution of coercive measures to compel the appearance of witnesses, the learned trial court shall direct the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police to file an affidavit in this regard.

¶27

The learned trial court shall be under an obligation to examine whether the judgements of this Court in Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir (supra) & Jitendra (supra) as well as directions of Director General of Police, Government of U.P. & the Home Secretary, Government of U.P. issued in compliance thereof have been implemented or not and to take appropriate action as per law.

¶28

The learned trial court shall also take appropriate measures in law after receipt of such affidavit which may include summoning the concerned officials in person.

¶29

It is further directed that in case any accused person who has been enlarged on bail does not cooperate in the trial or adopts dilatory tactics, the learned trial court shall record a

¶30

finding to this effect and cancel the bail without recourse to this Court.

¶31

The trial judge shall submit a fortnightly report on the progress of trial and the steps taken to comply with this order to the learned District Judge.

¶32

A copy of this order be communicated to the learned trial judge through the learned District Judge, Ballia as well as Senior Superintendent of Police, Ballia by the Registrar (Compliance) by e-mail.

¶33

Order Date :- 24.1.2025 Dhananjai

¶34

Digitally signed by :- DHANANJAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ajay Chauhan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Chauhan 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

Chandra Shekhar vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Sarita vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sandeep Chauhan and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mithun Paswan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pankaj Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bipin Kumar Maurya vs State of U.P. and 3 Others