Allahabad High Court
Anil Kumar Pandey And 7 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 March, 2023
Bench: Rahul Chaturvedi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 67
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9630 of 2023
Applicant :- Anil Kumar Pandey And 7 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhanshu Pandey,Ravi Kant Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Sri Sudhanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prabhash Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State.
By means of the present application, the applicant is assailing the legality and validity of the entire criminal proceeding of complaint case no. 4179 of 2022 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-IInd, Bhadohi at Gyanpur and summoning order dated 08.09.2022 under Sections 323, 427, 147, 452 IPC, P.S. Oonjha, Sant Ravidas Nagar/Bhadohi.
Contention raised by the counsel that the present complaint case is counter blast to the FIR lodged by Anil Kumar Pandey against as many as six named accused persons. This FIR was came into existence on 17.12.2021 for the incident said to have been taken place o n 19.10.2021 and 11.11.2021. Soon after lodging of the FIR, the present complaint case was lodged by Santosh Kumar Pandey one of the named accused of the earlier FIR dated 17.12.2021. After recording of the statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 08.09.2022, the applicant were summoned to face the prosecution under Sections, 323, 427, 147, 452 whereby all the accused persons were summoned to face the prosecution.
In this regard Sri Sudhanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is clear cut case of malicious prosecution whereby Ansh (minor), Arpita (minor) under the guadianship of Anil Kumar Pandey whereas Nania and Sipra are minor. allegedly involved in the present case.
Taking the averments to be true on its face value, be it so, all these minor persons may claim junenility and as per the provision of Juenile Justice Act, no penal action shall be taken against these minor persons nor they would be sent to jail.
So far as applicant nos. 1 to 4 are concerned, they are major.
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 applicants no.1 to 4 have 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 no. 1 to 4 surrender within 14 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 14 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants no. 1 to 4 in the aforementioned case.
It is made clear that no time extension application would be entertained for extending the period of 14 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.
Order Date :- 23.3.2023
Abhishek Sri.
