Court No. - 67
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17372 of 2019 Applicant :- Swadesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Sri Pankaj Srivastva, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rakesh Agrahari, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings as well as the Non Bailable Warrants dated 24.1.2019 passed in Case No. 52P of 2016 (State Vs. Swadesh Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 103 of 2015, under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and section 3/4 POCSO Act, PS. Ajitmal, District Auraiya pending in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Auraiya.
From the perusal of the record it appears that applicant was married with Smt. Saloni daughter of opposite party No. 2 and they are presently peacefully living as husband and wife and initially a protection was granted by this Court but due to inadvertence, the same was vacated vide order dated 27.09.2018 and pursuance thereof the Non Bailable Warrants were issued against the applicant. The applicant has no knowledge and information about this order.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case this 482 Cr.P.C. application stands disposed of with the direction that in case the applicant surrenders within 30 days before the court and if his 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 30 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 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.
It is further directed that thereafter the applicant, if he so advised, may move discharge application by enumerating all the facts of this case before the court concerned, the same shall be heard and disposed of in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations, the present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 RPD