Court No. - 67
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18839 of 2021
Applicant :- Vipul Vinod Shah
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Kumar Tyagi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gyan Prakash, learned A.S.G.I. assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the C.B.I.
This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceeding and summoning against the applicant in the court of Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption, C.B.I., Ghaziabad arises on the filing of the charge sheet no.03 of 2021 dated 29.01.2021 in FIR No. RC 3(E)/2006/EOW-1/DLI under Sections 120-B read with Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC.
Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the C.B.I. has lodged the FIR. The applicant is one of the named accused person. After investigation, the Investigating Agency-CBI vide order dated 29.01.2021 and 30.07.2021 have filed two charge sheets under section 120B read with Section 420/467/468/471 IPC and other substantive offences before Special Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad and second charge sheet was submitted under section 120 read with Section 420, 466, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and substantive offences against named accused persons. Fact remains that both the charge sheets were submitted arising out of same FIR.
The next contention raised is that since both the charge sheets were arising out of same FIR, in the fitness of circumstances, both the cases should be tried one and same. Be it so, the applicant is directed to move suitable application before the court concerned for clubbing both the proceedings and decide the same.
In addition to above, learned counsel for the applicant has tried to draw the attention of the Court to the merit of the case in which he has raised number of legal as factual aspect of the issue which could be well appreciated after exchange of pleadings.
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 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 applicant surrender 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.
Under the circumstances, the applicant, if so advised, may file discharge application and the same shall be heard and decided by the learned court concerned by a well reasoned order strictly in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations, the present application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 22.12.2021 Sumit S