Disposed¶10

Ramu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2025BAIL/2681/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Speedy trial; bail application; non-compliance with High Court directions dated 29.08.2024; Section 309 Cr.P.C.; Section 346 BNSS; trial court delay; District Judge enquiry report; Deputy Director (Prosecution) affidavit; Ramu v. State of U.P.; Allahabad High Court; Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2681 of 2025; Case Crime No. 140 of 2024; Sections 302, 201 I.P.C.; Police Station Sasnigate; Aligarh; listed 28.05.2025.

What did the court decide?

Bail application not decided on merits; directions issued to the District Judge and the trial court to submit reports on compliance with the Court's 29.08.2024 directions and the cause of trial delay; Deputy Director (Prosecution) to file affidavit; matter listed on 28.05.2025. ¶10

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, whose trial is progressing slowly (only 7 of 23 proposed witnesses examined), is entitled to bail on the ground that the inordinate delay in concluding the trial violates his right to speedy trial. +1 more

¶6

Ratio / Principle

Prima facie, the directions issued by this Court on 29.08.2024 have not been complied with by the learned trial court; disobedience of orders of this Court by the trial court strikes directly at the root of the rule of law.

¶9

Key takeaways

Learned District Judge directed to examine the matter and send a report on the prima facie disobedience of this Court's directions by the learned trial court and the cause for the delay in concluding the trial.ratio¶10
Trial court directed to send a separate report on compliance with this Court's directions, the cause for the delay, and the status of the trial in Case Crime No. 140 of 2024 (Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., PS Sasnigate, District Aligarh) with tabulated details covering chargesheet/charge-framing dates, witness lists, witnesses examined, summoned absentees, and coercive measures.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Ajay Bhanot, J.) — second bail application by Ramu, in jail since 12.03.2024 in Case Crime No. 140 of 2024 under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Sasnigate, District Aligarh. Applicant contended non-compliance with this Court's directions dated 29.08.2024 passed in the first bail application (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 29658 of 2024), which had mandated an expeditious trial and implementation of Section 309 Cr.P.C./346 BNSS; the chargesheet listed 23 prosecution witnesses but only 7 had been examined. The Court prima facie found non-compliance, observing that disobedience of its orders strikes directly at the root of the rule of law. It directed the District Judge to report on the prima facie disobedience and the cause of delay; the trial court to send a separate compliance report disclosing the trial status in tabulated form (dates of chargesheet and framing of charge, list of proposed witnesses, witnesses examined with dates, summoned absentees, and coercive measures taken); and the Deputy Director (Prosecution) to file an affidavit disclosing the number of witnesses proposed to be examined. The Court clarified that none of these observations shall be construed adversely against any judicial officer unless the District Judge concludes otherwise. Bail was not finally decided; the matter was listed on 28.05.2025.

¶1

Court No. - 5

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2681 of 2025 Applicant :- Ramu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd Faiz Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶4

Matter is taken up in the revised call.

¶5

This is the second bail application. The applicant is in jail since 12.03.2024.

¶6

Shri Mohd. Faiz, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the directions issued by this Court on 29.08.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 29658 of 2024 have not been complied with by the learned trial court. As per chargesheet the prosecution proposes to examine 23 witnesses. Till date only 7 witnesses have been examined. 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. The right of the applicant to speedy trial has been violated.

¶7

While deciding the first bail application registered as Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 29658 of 2024 on 29.08.2024 this Court had alerted the learned trial court of the right of the accused to speedy trial. Various directions

¶8

were also made upon the learned trial court to expedite the trial and to implement the mandate of Section 309 Cr.P.C./346 BNSS.

¶9

Prima facie, it appears that the directions of this Court have not been complied with and this is a rather distressing state of affairs. Disobedience of orders of this Court by the learned trial court strikes directly at the root of the rule of law.

¶10

Learned District Judge shall examine the matter and send a report regarding prima facie disobedience of the aforesaid directions of this Court by the learned trial court and the cause for the delay in concluding the trial.

¶11

Learned trial court to send a separate report regarding the compliance of the said directions of this Court and cause for the delay in the trial and shall disclose the status of the trial in Case Crime No. 140 of 2024 under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Sasnigate, District- Aligarh along with the following details in tabulated form:-

¶12

(1) Dates on which chargesheet was filed and the charge was framed.

¶13

(2) Number of prosecution witnesses in the chargesheet.

¶14

(3) Number and particulars (i.e. name, nature of witness like eye witness and expert witness etc.) of prosecution witnesses proposed to be examined as per the charge sheet.

¶15

(4) List of proposed prosecution witnesses/calendar submitted before the trial court for examination during the trial.

¶16

(5) Names and number of prosecution witnesses who have been examined before the trial court with dates.

¶17

(6) Names and number of witnesses who have been summoned but have not attended the trial proceedings on the appointed dates with dates.

¶18

(7) Names and number of witnesses against whom coercive measures have been taken out with dates. List this case on 28.05.2025.

¶19

Needless to add, none of the above observations shall be construed adversely against any judicial officer unless the District Judge comes to another conclusion.

¶20

Deputy Director (Prosecution) shall file an affidavit on the next date of listing disclosing the number of witnesses proposed to be examined.

¶21

A copy of this order be communicated to the learned trial judge through the learned District Judge, Aligarh by the Registrar (Compliance) by e-mail.

¶22

Order Date :- 10.4.2025 Pravin

¶23

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

Ramu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rakesh Kushwaha vs State of U.P.

Adesh vs State of U.P.

Arati Verma vs State of U.P.

Bhanumati vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Law and Justice Lko. and 13 Others

Mohammad Ishak vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sushil Raikwar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others