Allahabad High Court
Ram Pal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 January, 2023
Bench: Rahul Chaturvedi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 67
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1044 of 2023
Applicant :- Ram Pal
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Mahesh Chandra Tiwari,Kiran Tiwari
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 non-bailable warrant dated 18.01.2021 issued by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.11, Agra in Special Sessions Trial no.1051 of 2009 arising out of case crime no.404 of 2009 under section 25 Arms Act, Police station-Etamadpur District-Agra.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appplicant that the applicant is on bail in Special Sessions Trial no.1051 of 2009 and he has absented himself from the trial and therefore, the trial Judge on 18.01.2021 has issued non-bailable warrant against him. Learned counsel for the applicant next submits that his client is ready to cooperate in the trial.
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 if the applicant surrenders within 10 days before the court and if his bail application is filed, the same shall be adjudicated and decided by the courts below with heavy sureties 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 10 days from today, non-bailable warrant dated 18.01.2021 issued against the applicant shall not be given effect to and after getting bailed out, the applicant shall regularly participate in the aforesaid sessions trial till its conclusion.
It is made clear that no time extension application would be entertained for extending the period of 10 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.
Order Date :- 23.1.2023
Sumit S
