Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Shahid And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 February, 2020
Author: Rahul Chaturvedi
Bench: Rahul Chaturvedi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 67 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2896 of 2020 Applicant :- Mohd. Shahid And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Preet Pal Singh Rathore Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satish Chandra Tiwari Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
By means of present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants are challenging the summoning order dated 05.01.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Sahaswan, Budaun as well as entire proceeding in Complaint Case No.21 of 2017 (Smt. Rizwana Vs. Mohd. Shahid and others), under Sections 323, 427 I.P.C., Police Station-Sahaswan, District-Budaun as well as order dated 17.12.2019 passed in Criminal Revision No.30 of 2019 whereby learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.10, Budaun has affirmed the summoning order.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
So far as applicant nos.1 to 5 namely Mohd. Shahid, Arsad, Musahid, Khaliq Ahmad and Smt. Noor Jahan are concerned, keeping in view the allegations made against them and its nature and gravity, I am not inclined to exercise my inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. However, this Court is of the opinion that in the fitness of circumstances, this application stands disposed of with regard to applicant nos.1 to 5 with the direction that the court below would extend the benefit of interim bail (if the court concerned deems it fit according to the merit of each case) 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 these applicants surrender within 30 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 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant nos.1 to 5 in the aforementioned case.
It is made clear that no time extension application would be entertained for extending the aforesaid period.
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.
So far as the applicant no.6 Smt. Ashia is concerned, it has been contended that she is a married Nanad of opposite party no.2, though she was married after the incident in question but the fact remains that she is married.
Keeping in view the contentions raised on behalf of counsel for the parties, the matter requires consideration.
Notice on behalf of opposite party no.1 has been accepted by learned A.G.A, who prays for and is allowed six weeks time to file counter affidavit.
Issue notice to opposite party no.2 to file counter affidavit within the same period.
Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List after expiry of the aforesaid period.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant no.6 namely Smt. Ashia only, pursuant summoning order dated 05.01.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Sahaswan, Budaun in Complaint Case No.21 of 2017 (Smt. Rizwana Vs. Mohd. Shahid and others), under Sections 323, 427 I.P.C., Police Station-Sahaswan, District-Budaun as well as order dated 17.12.2019 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.10, Budaun in Criminal Revision No.30 of 2019 (Mohd. Shahid and others vs. State of U.P. and another), with the condition laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and other Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation decided on 28.03.2018, which reads as under :-
"Situation of proceedings remaining pending for long on account of stay needs to be remedied. Remedy was required not only for corruption cases but for all civil and criminal cases where on account of stay, civil and criminal proceedings were held up. At times, proceedings were adjourned sine die on account of stay. Even after stay was vacated, intimation was not received and proceedings were not taken up. It was directed that in all pending cases where stay against proceedings of civil or criminal trial was operating, the same would come to end on expiry of six months from today unless in exceptional case by speaking order such stay was extended. In cases where stay was granted in future, same would end on expiry of six months from date of such order unless similar extension was granted by speaking order."
It is made clear that in the event, if the pleadings are not exchanged or any non-co-operation by contesting parties in filing their counter version, it would be open for the Court to pass any suitable order at the end of abovementioned upper limit of six months.
Order Date :- 17.2.2020 M. Kumar