Allahabad High Court
Jagdish Raikwar vs State Of U.P. on 2 June, 2025
Author: Ajay Bhanot
Bench: Ajay Bhanot
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:94178
Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17996 of 2025
Applicant :- Jagdish Raikwar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Matter is taken up in the revised call.
By means of the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 91 of 2025 at Police Station-Ajnar, District-Mahoba under Sections 103(1) of B.N.S. The applicant is in jail since 29.04.2025.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by trial court on 08.05.2025.
The applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased went missing in the early morning of 18.04.2025. The son of the applicant was witness to an altercation between the deceased and the applicant. According to the said witness the deceased thereafter left her house and was followed by her husband. The applicant returned alone. When the deceased failed to return home the children asked the applicant for her whereabouts but he gave them evasive replies. The applicant did not file any missing report even though his wife remained missing for two days. The F.I.R. was lodged by the brother of the applicant. There are antemortem injuries on the person of the deceased. The chain of incriminating circumstances against the applicant is complete. The offence is grave. There is likelihood that the applicant committed the offence. At this stage, no case for bail is made out.
Without going into the merits of the case, the bail application is dismissed.
Considering the gravity of the offence, interest of justice will be served by directing the learned trial court to expedite the trial.
Though no specific time frame to conclude the trial has been set out in the Cr.P.C., yet the legislative intent of Section 309 Cr.P.C. is explicit. The scheme of the provision clearly shows that the legislative intent is to conclude the trial in an expeditious time frame. In the facts of this case, the learned trial court shall make all endeavours to conclude the trial expeditiously. Preferably the trial court shall set for itself a reasonable time frame to conclude the trial say one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
All witnesses and counsels are directed to cooperate with the trial proceedings.
The learned trial court shall issue summons by regular process as per Section 62 Cr.P.C. and also by registered post as provided under Section 69 Cr.P.C. to expedite the trial.
The learned trial court shall promptly take out all strict coercive measures against all the witnesses in accordance with law who fail to appear in the trial proceeding. Counsels or parties who delay or impede the proceedings should not only be discouraged from doing so but in appropriate cases exemplary costs should also be imposed on such parties/ counsel.
The police authorities shall ensure that warrants or any coercive measures as per law taken out by the learned trial court to ensure that the attendance of the witnesses are promptly executed.
The Superintendent of Police, Mahoba shall file an affidavit before the trial court on the date fixed regarding status of execution of the warrants/service of summons taken out by the learned trial court.
The delay in the trials caused by the failure of the police authorities to serve summons or execute coercive measures to compel the appearance of witnesses at the trial despite a statutory mandate, is an issue of grave concern. The said issue had arisen for consideration before this Court in Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir Vs. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16871 of 2023) & Jitendra v. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9126 of 2023). This Court in Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir (supra) & Jitendra (supra) had issued certain directions to the police authorities regarding their statutory duty to promptly serve summons and execute coercive processes to compel the appearance of witnesses.
The Director General of Police, Government of U.P. as well as Principal Secretary (Home), Government of U.P. had taken out relevant orders in compliance of judgements in Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir (supra) & Jitendra (supra) and nominated the Senior Superintendent of Police of the concerned districts as the nodal officials for implementing the said judgments.
The counsels as well as the learned trial court are directed to comply with the directions issued by this Court in Noor Alam Vs. State of U.P. rendered in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 53159 of 2021. In case any strike happens during the course of the trial, the learned trial court is directed to ensure full compliance of the directions issued in Noor Alam (supra) to prevent delay in the trial.
In case the police authorities are failing to comply with the directions issued by this Court in Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir (supra) & Jitendra (supra) and do not implement the said directions of the Director General of Police, Government of U.P. & the Home Secretary, Government of U.P. in regard to service of summons and execution of coercive measures to compel the appearance of witnesses, the learned trial court shall direct the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police to file an affidavit in this regard.
The learned trial court shall be under an obligation to examine whether the judgements of this Court in Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir (supra) & Jitendra (supra) as well as directions of Director General of Police, Government of U.P. & the Home Secretary, Government of U.P. issued in compliance thereof have been implemented or not and to take appropriate action as per law.
The learned trial court shall also take appropriate measures in law after receipt of such affidavit which may include summoning the concerned officials in person.
The trial judge shall submit a fortnightly report on the progress of trial and the steps taken to comply with this order to the learned District Judge.
Before parting submissions of Shri Sushil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant need to be recorded.
It is informed that the applicant has minor children who have been left to fend for themselves after the death of their mother and imprisonment of the applicant.
In case the children are bereft of any guardian and are not being maintained by any family members, appropriate decision shall be taken by the CWC and District Probationary Officer in consultation with the DLSA for ensuring protective environment and conducive conditions for holistic growth of the children. The report shall also ensure the the studies of the children are not disturbed on this ground.
In the meantime the State shall also examine the steps taken for bringing up the children who are bereft of their parents in view of such tragedy where one parent has died and other is in jail. The steps shall be taken in light of the judgment rendered by this Court in Smt. Rekha Vs. State of U.P. rendered in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25993 of 2024.
A copy of this order to be sent to Principal Secretary (Women and Child Development) Government of U.P., Director General (Prisons) Government of U.P., District Judge, Mahoba as well as Superintendent of Police, Mahoba by the Registrar (Compliance) through FAX.
Order Date :- 2.6.2025
Dhananjai
