Allahabad High Court
Lalman vs State Of U.P. & Another on 3 November, 2017
Bench: J.J. Munir
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 51
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36009 of 2017
Applicant :- Lalman
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Savita
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
The instant application has been filed seeking to quash the non bailable warrant dated 18.04.2016 issued in S.S.T. No. 15 of 2011under Sections 147, 323, 395, 436, 504, 506 IPC P.S. Rura District Kanpur Dehat.
The prayer as framed cannot be granted as no substantive order has been challenged. Non bailable warrant is only a process based on a substantive order. No challenge can be allowed to a mere non bailable warrant without something more being challenged. This prayer cannot be granted.
However, learned counsel for the applicant at the hearing very fairly limited, his prayer to seek a direction for an expeditious consideration of his bail application upon surrender by the applicant before the trial court.
Learned AGA opposes the prayer on the ground that the offences are heinous.
Whether the offences are heinous or trivial, it does not affect the right of a person to have his prayer for bail considered expeditiously. That right flows from Article 21 of the Constitution. The right to expeditious consideration of bail is not a right to the actual grant of it; it is only a right to the consideration of it. This is what the applicant seeks. In this regard, the gravity of the offence is quite irrelevant.
In the context of the prayer made in this application, due notice, mention even effect to the judgment and directions of their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hussain and another vs. Union of India AIR 2017 SC 1362 must be done. Paragraph Nos. 26 & 27 of the report in Re-Hussain (Supra) read thus:
"26. Judicial service as well as legal service are not like any other services. They are missions for serving the society. The mission is not achieved if the litigant who is waiting in the queue does not get his turn for a long time. Chief Justices and Chief Ministers have resolved that all cases must be disposed of within five years which by any standard is quite a long time for a case to be decided in the first court. Decision of cases of undertrials in custody is one of the priority areas.
There are obstructions at every level in enforcement of right of speedy trial - vested interests or unscrupulous elements try to delay the proceedings. Lack of infrastructure is another handicap. Inspite of all odds, determined efforts are required at every level for success of the mission. Ways and means have to be found out by constant thinking and monitoring. Presiding Officer of a court cannot rest in the state of helplessness. This is the constitutional responsibility of the State to provide necessary infrastructure and of the High Courts to monitor the functioning of subordinate courts to ensure timely disposal of cases. The first step in this direction is preparation of an appropriate action plan at the level of the High Court and thereafter at the level of each and every individual judicial officer. Implementation of the action plan will require serious efforts and constant monitoring.
27. To sum up:
(i) The High Courts may issue directions to subordinate courts that -
(a) Bail applications be disposed of normally within one week;
(b) Magisterial trials, where accused are in custody, be normally concluded within six months and sessions trials where accused are in custody be normally concluded within two years;
(c) Efforts be made to dispose of all cases which are five years old by the end of the year;
(d) As a supplement to Section 436A, but consistent with the spirit thereof, if an undertrial has completed period of custody in excess of the sentence likely to be awarded if conviction is recorded such undertrial must be released on personal bond. Such an assessment must be made by the concerned trial courts from time to time;
(e) The above timelines may be the touchstone for assessment of judicial performance in annual confidential reports.
(emphasis added)
(ii) The High Courts are requested to ensure that bail applications filed before them are decided as far as possible within one month and criminal appeals where accused are in custody for more than five years are concluded at the earliest;
(iii) The High Courts may prepare, issue and monitor appropriate action plans for the subordinate courts;
(iv) The High Courts may monitor steps for speedy investigation and trials on administrative and judicial side from time to time;
(v) The High Courts may take such stringent measures as may be found necessary in the light of judgment of this Court in Ex. Captain Harish Uppal (supra)."
Accordingly, this application is disposed of with a direction to the trial court where S.S.T. No. 15 of 2011 under Sections 147, 323, 395, 436, 504, 506 IPC is pending to consider and dispose of the bail application of the applicant expeditiously in accordance with directions no. (i)(a) carried in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Re-Hussain (Supra) in case, he surrenders within a period of 20 days next.
It is made clear that no expression on the merits of the case has been made by this Court.
Order Date :- 3.11.2017
Deepak
