Court No. - 67
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7346 of 2019 Applicant :- Mohd. Shahid @ Saeed Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nanhe Lal Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard applicant's counsel as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Perusal of the record reveals that the applicant is facing trial in Case No. 2560 of 2011 (State v. Mohd. Shahid @ Saeed) arising out of Case Crime No. 342 2011, under sections 272 and 273 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Lalitpur, District Lalitpur pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur vide order dated 04.12.2017 has already been discharged the applicant from the offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 but just to harass the applicant another complaint case has been slapped upon the applicant under sections 272 and 273 IPC, which is bad in the eyes of law.
Per contra, learned AGA has pointed out that by means of the instant application filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant is assailing the charge sheet against which there is no plausible justification for the inordinate delay in filing the present application in the year 2019 i.e. after an elapse of eight years. It is true that there is no limitation in file an application under section 482 Cr.P.C., but the Court has to evolve some self imposed restrictions while admitting and entertaining any petition in this jurisdiction and thus this Court is of the considered opinion that the present application filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., is liable to be rejected.
However, 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 applicant has already given up that he does not want to press the case on merit, in the fitness of circumstances, the court below is directed to extend the benefit of interim bail (if the court concerned, deems it fit according to the merit of each case) it is 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 surrender within seventy days before the court and if their 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 70 days 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 70 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 direction, the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby disposed of.
Order Date :- 25.2.2019 shailesh