Court No. - 67
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15146 of 2019 Applicant :- Kishan Veer Alias Krishn Veer And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Shishodia Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants 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 applicants is to quash the order dated 14.01.2019 passed in Protest Petition by which the applicants are summoned under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 504 IPC, and entire proceedings of Criminal Misc. Case No.109 of 2019 arising out of case crime no.133 of 2015 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 504 IPC, Police Station-Eka, District-Firozabad.
The contention advanced by learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants are challenging the order dated 14.01.2019 by which learned Magistrate, after rejecting the Final Report, has summoned the applicants to face the trial under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 504 IPC.
I have perused the entire materials available on record and I find that there are as many as six injuries over the person namely Aslam which is unexplained by learned counsel for the applicants.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced, in the fitness of circumstances, this 482 Cr.P.C. application stands disposed of with the direction that if the applicants surrender within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their bail application 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 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants 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.
Order Date :- 26.4.2019 Sumit S