Allahabad High Court
Pramod Kumar Rawat vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 9 August, 2019
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 13 Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 5746 of 2019 Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Rawat Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
Heard learned counsel for applicant as well as Shri Veer Raghav Chaubey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 50930 of 2015, "State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Rawat and Others, arising out of Case Crime No. 106 of 2014, under Sections 147, 447/511, 427, 379 I.P.C. relating to Police Station Madiyawn, District Lucknow, pending in the Court of Learned A.C.J.M.-IV, District Lucknow and also quash the charge-sheet dated 22.06.2015 as well as summoning order dated 02.11.2015 and N.B.W. dated 01.07.2019 pending before the Learned A.C.J.M.-IV, District Lucknow.
After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the grievance of the applicant will be redressed, if a direction be given to the Subordinate Court to decide the bail application of the applicant, at the earliest.
Learned A.G.A. is also not having any objection to the prayer of learned counsel for the applicant, as it is otherwise the duty of the Court below to decide any bail application, which may be moved by the applicant at the earliest point of time.
Having considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it appears that the only prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant is, for a direction to the trial Court to decide his bail application, at the earliest.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0274/2017 has been pleased to issue following guidelines/direction :-
"To sum up:-
(i) The High Courts may issue directions to subordinate courts that-
(a) Bail applications be disposed of normally within one week;
(b) 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;
(c) Efforts be made to dispose of all cases which are five years old by the end of the year;
(d) As a supplement to Section 436A, but consistent with the spirit thereof, if an undertrial has completed period of custody in excess of the sentence likely to be awarded if conviction is recorded such undertrial must be released on personal bond. Such an assessment must be made by the concerned trial courts from time to time;
(e) The above timelines may be the touchstone for assessment of judicial performance in annutal confidential reports. (emphasis added)
(ii) The High Courts are requested to ensure that bail applications filed before them are decided as far as possible within one month and criminal appeals where Accused are in custody for more than five years are concluded at the earliest;
(iii) The High Courts may prepare, issue and monitor appropriate action plans for the subordinate courts;
(iv) The High Courts may monitor steps for speedy investigation and trials on administrative and judicial side from time to time;
(v) The High Courts may take such stringent measures as may be found necessary in the light of judgment of this Court in Ex. Captain Harish Uppal (supra)." (Emphasis mine) Seven Judges Bench of this Court in Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) ordered as under:
"(1) Even if cognizable offence is disclosed, in the FIR or complaint the arrest of the accused is not a must, rather the police officer should be guided by the decision of the Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., 1994 Cr. L.J. 1981 before deciding whether to make an arrest or not.
(2) The High Court should ordinarily not direct any Subordinate Court to decide the bail application the same day, as that would be interfering with the judicial discretion of the Court hearing the bail application. However, as stated above, when the bail application is under Section 437 Cr.P.C. ordinarily the Magistrate should himself decide the bail application the same day, and if he decides in a rare and exceptional case not to decide it on the same day, he must record his reasons in writing. As regards the application under 439 Cr.P.C., it is in the discretion of the learned Sessions Judge considering the facts and circumstances whether to decide the bail application the same day or not, and it is also in his discretion to grant interim bail the same day subject to the final decision on the bail application later.
(3) The decision in Dr. Vinod Narain v. State of U.P. (supra) is incorrect and is substituted accordingly by this judgment.
I am, therefore, directed to send herewith a copy of the judgement and order dated 15.10.2004 passed by the Full Bench of this Court in Cri. Misc. Application No. 2154 of 1995,aforesaid for your information and strict compliance of the directions as contained therein. The directions of the Court may kindly be brought to the notice of all the Judicial Officers in the Judgeship for their guidance."
A Circular Letter No. 44/2004 dated 16th October, 2004 was also issued by this Court in its administrative side for compliance by the Subordinate Court.
This Court speaking through a Division Bench headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ramesh Sinha in "Brahm Singh and others Vs. State of U.P & others" in (Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 15609 of 2016 decided on 08.07.2016) taking into consideration the law laid down in Amrawati's case (supra) as approved by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh's case (supra) directed the Sessions Judges of the State to ensure that directions given in Amrawati's case (supra) and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh's case (supra) are binding on the courts below and be followed in letter and spirit failing which adverse inference would be drawn against erring officers and this Court would be compelled to take appropriate action against them, if any non-compliance is found in this regard.
The ratio of above mentioned decisions is quite clear that, in the backdrop of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as the personal liberty of a person is at stake, the bail applications should be decided, expeditiously.
In backdrop of aforesaid decisions and keeping in view the request of learned counsel for the applicant, the application is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the Court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail may be considered and decided in view of the law laid down in "Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0274/2017, Amrawati's case (supra) as approved by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh's case (supra) as well as the dictum of this Court laid down in "Brahm Singh's case (supra).
For a period of 30 days from today or till the surrender of appellants before trial Court, whichever is earlier, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicant in the above mentioned case.
It is further clarified that, the time of 30 days granted by this Court shall not in any case be further extended, on whatsoever grounds.
Order Date :- 9.8.2019 Praveen