Atul Kumar Dubey vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 3951 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 69
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3078 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Atul Kumar Dubey
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Upendra Kumar Singh,Raksha Chauhan
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

List revised.

Heard Sri Upendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Atul Kumar Dubey with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Charge Sheet dated 30.10.2018 in Case Crime No. 847 of 2018, under Section 354, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Chhibaramau, District Kannauj, as well as summoning order dated 14.11.2018 passed by A.C.J.M., Chhibaramau, Kannauj by which taken cognizance and summoned the applicant U/s 354, 504 I.P.C. in Criminal Case No. 2099 of 2018 (UPKJ100005282018), State vs. Atul Kumar, and with the further prayer to stay the effect and operation of entire criminal proceedings of said case as well as said summoning order, during pendency of the present application.

Records of the present case show that the applicant had previously filed a Criminal Misc. Application (482 Cr.P.C.) No. 47326 of 2018 (Atul Kumar Dwivedi @ Atul Kumar vs. State of U.P. and another) with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of the case against him. After arguments at length he gave up the case on merits and argued that direction may be issued to the courts concerned to decide his bail within specific time frame and considering the same a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.1.2019 directed his bail application to be decided within a period of 30 days by giving direction for its disposal, copy of the said order is annexed as annexure no. 15 to the affidavit in support of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Now again the applicant has filed second application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the aforesaid prayers.

The order dated 22.1.2019 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Application (482 Cr.P.C.) No. 47326 of 2018 (Atul Kumar Dwivedi @ Atul Kumar vs. State of U.P. and another) reads as under :-

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

By means of the present 482 Cr.P.C. application, the prayer sought by the applicant is to quash the entire criminal proceeding of criminal case no. 2099 of 2018, arising out of case crime no. 847 of 2018, under Section 354 and 504 IPC, P.S. Chhibramau, District Kannauj pending in the Court of A.C.J.M., Chhibramau, Kannauj.

After arguing the case for quite some time at length and pitted against certain observations made by the Court, learned counsel for the applicant himself has given up to address the Court on merits of the case and prayed, that the purpose of his client would suffice, if a direction may be given to the courts below to decide his bail application within specific time frame.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced, this Court is of the opinion that since learned counsel for the applicant has already given up that he does not want to press the case on merit, in the fitness of circumstances, this 482 Cr.P.C. application stands disposed of with the direction that the court below would extend the benefit of interim bail (in a given case, it is discretion of the court concerned) as contemplated in the law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. after the applicants surrender within 30 days from today before the court and if their bail application is filed, the same shall be adjudicated by the courts below with speaking and reasoned order, strictly in accordance with law, in the light of the judgment given by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hussain and another Vs. Union of India reported in (2017) 5 SCC Page-702, relevant extract of which reads as under :-

".......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"....... "Decision of cases of under-trials 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"....... "In spite of all odds, determined efforts are required at every level for success of the mission"..... "The Presiding Officer of a court cannot rest in a 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."

To satiate speedy disposal of the cases, the courts below are issued following directions in accordance with the observations made in the case of Hussain and another (Supra):

(i)Bail applications be disposed of normally within one week :

(ii) 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.

(iii).......................................................................................................;

(iv)......................................................................................................."

The above timelines may be the touchstone for assessment of judicial performance in annual confidential reports.

For the period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforementioned case.

It is made clear that no time extension application would be entertained for extending the period of 30 days.

The ratio mentioned above is the last word for every judicial officers for abiding with the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the aforesaid scenario, it would be pertinent to refer the case of Brahm Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 08.07.2016 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.15609 of 2016 whereby co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while taking into account the concerns of most of the counsels with regard to the long pending bail applications at lower courts' stage has expressed their anguish and concern.

In the aforesaid backdrop, learned Sessions Judge/the concerned Trial Judge is directed to ensure that the guidelines given in the case of Hussain and another (supra) as well as in Brahm Singh and others (Supra) has to be carried out in its letter and spirit, failing which an adverse inference would be drawn against the erring officers and this Court would be compelled to take appropriate action against them, if found that there is laxity in adhering the above directions.

In the event, the bail application is not decided within seven days as contemplated above, the learned Judge will have to spell out the justifiable reasons and record the same on the order sheet of such cases.

With the aforesaid observations, the present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands disposed of."

Since there was a previous order dated 22.1.2019 on the request of learned counsel for the applicant to surrender before the concerned court and directing his bail application to be decided in a time bound manner, in the opinion of the Court, the present Criminal Misc. Application (U/S 482Cr.P.C.) with the same prayers is not appreciated. The applicant had previously gave up the challenge of the entire criminal proceedings against him and had confined his prayer only to disposal of his bail application within specific period of time which was granted to him as back as about 04 years and the same still remains to be complied with by him or in other words has not been complied with by him. The approach of the applicant to the Court again with the aforesaid prayers of filing a second petition for the same reliefs is clearly misuse of process of law.

In view of the same, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands rejected.

(Samit Gopal,J.)

Order Date :- 8.2.2023

Naresh