Allahabad High Court
Vijay Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 February, 2023
Bench: Rahul Chaturvedi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 67
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2010 of 2023
Applicant :- Vijay Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Upendra Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as 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 proceeding of case no.157 of 2021 and impugned charge sheet dated 10.11.2020 in case crime no.0055 of 2020 under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, police station-Sahson, District-Etawah as well as cognizance order dated 26.03.2021 passed by Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No.2/Judicial Magistrate, Etawah.
The only legal point raised by learned counsel for the applicant is that the cognizance of the offence has been taken on the printed proforma which has been deprecated by the various Courts on number of occasions.
However, learned A.G.A. has pointed out the judgment of this Court in Application U/S 482 No.14501 of 2016 titled as "Atul Kumar Jain and others Vs. State of U.P. and anr." in which, co-ordinate Bench of this Court has given following observations :-
"11. Even in cases instituted otherwise than on police report the Magistrate is required to write an order showing the reasons only if he is to discharge the accused. This is clear from Section 245. As per the first sub-section of Section 245, if a magistrate, after taking all the evidence considers that no case against the accused has been made out which if unrebutted would warrant his conviction, he shall discharge the accused. As per sub-section (2) the Magistrate is empowered to discharge the accused at any previous stage of the case if he considers the charge to be groundless. Under both sub-sections he is obliged to record his reasons for doing so. In this context it is pertinent to point out that even in a trial before a court of session, the judge is required to record reasons only if he decides to discharge the accused. (vide Section 227 of the Code). But if he is to frame the charge he may do so without recording his reasons for showing why he framed the charge.
12. If there is no legal requirement that the trial court should write an order showing the reasons for framing a charge, why should the already burdened trial Courts be further burdened with such an extra work. The time has reached to adopt all possible measures to expedite the the court procedures and to chalk out measures to avert all roadblocks causing avoidable delays. If a Magistrate is to write detailed orders at different stages merely because the counsel would address arguments at all stages, the snail paced progress of proceedings in trial courts would further be slowed down. We are coming across interlocutory orders of Magistrates and Sessions Judges running into several pages. We can appreciate if such a detailed order has been passed for culminating the proceedings before them. But it is quite unnecessary to write detailed orders at other stages, such as issuing process, remanding the accused to custody, framing of charges, passing over to next stages in the trial. It is a salutary guideline that when orders rejecting or granting bail are passed, the Court should avoid expressing one way or other on contentious issues, except in cases such as those falling within Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985."
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced, this 482 Cr.P.C. application stands disposed of with the direction that the court below would extend the benefit of interim bail (if the court concerned deems it fit according to the merit of each case) 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 applicant surrenders within two weeks before the court and if his bail application is filed, the same shall be adjudicated and decided 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 two weeks 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 two weeks.
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.
Order Date :- 16.2.2023
Sumit S
