Allahabad High Court
Sabbeer Aali vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 17 October, 2024
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:165484 Court No. - 72 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34549 of 2024 Applicant :- Sabbeer Aali Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ambrish Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. A.C. Pandey, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Perused the record.
3. Applicant-Sabbeer Ali, who is the first informant, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for a direction to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Ganga Nagar, Commissionerate, Prayagraj to decide Case No. 12 of 2024 (Sabbeer Ali Vs. Kamrujama and Others), under Section 133 Cr.P.C. within time period fixed by this Court.
4. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of present application. Referring to paragraphs 41 and 42 of the Five Judges Bench judgment of Supreme Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2024 SCC Online SC 207, the learned A.G.A. submits that the prayer prayed for by means of present application cannot be granted. For ready reference, paragraphs 41 and 42 of the aforesaid report are extracted herein below:-
"41. Apart from dealing with huge arrears, our trial courts face the challenge of dealing with a large number of cases made time-bound by our constitutional courts. Therefore, in the ordinary course, the constitutional courts should not exercise the power to direct the disposal of a case before any District or trial court within a time span. In many cases, while rejecting a bail petition, a time-limit is fixed for disposal of trial on the ground that the petitioner has undergone incarceration for a long time without realising that the trial court concerned may have many pending cases where the accused are in jail for a longer period. The same logic will apply to the cases pending before the High Courts. When we exercise such power of directing High Courts to decide cases in a time-bound manner, we are not aware of the exact position of pendency of old cases in the said courts, which require priority to be given. Bail petitions remain pending for a long time. There are appeals against conviction pending where the appellants have been denied bail.
42. Therefore, constitutional courts should not normally fix a time-bound schedule for disposal of cases pending in any court. The pattern of pendency of various categories of cases pending in every court, including High Courts, is different. The situation at the grassroots level is better known to the Judges of the courts concerned. Therefore, the issue of giving out-of-turn priority to certain cases should be best left to the courts concerned. The orders fixing the outer limit for the disposal of cases should be passed only in exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations."
5. It is then contended by the learned A.G.A. that though the affidavit filed in support of present application runs into as many as 15 paragraphs, however, in none of the paragraphs, an attempt has been made by applicant to highlight the exceptional circumstance of the present case warranting time bound disposal. In view of above, the learned A.G.A. contends by submitting that no good ground exists to entertain the present application.
6. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.
7. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application are clearly borne out from the record and further the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant. As such, no good ground exists to entertain the present application.
8. As a result, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.
9. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.10.2024 Vinay