Allahabad High Court
Satyam Misrha vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home & Anr. on 9 August, 2019
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 13 Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 5740 of 2019 Applicant :- Satyam Misrha Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home & Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Awasthi 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 summoning order dated 27.03.2018 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unnao and Charge-sheet No. 01/2017 dated 14.12.2017 in Case No. 356/2018, Crime No. 1149/2017, under Sections 354, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Unnao (State Vs. Satyam Mishra).
Learned counsel for the applicant while pressing the application submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in this case and the Investigating Officer of the case without investigating the matter in depth has submitted the charge-sheet against the applicant.
It is further submitted that, the Court below has taken cognizance of the offence, vide order dated 27.03.2018 and issued the process against the applicant.
It is further submitted that the applicant wants to appear before the Court below and co-operate in the trial, but he is having an apprehension that as and when he will appear before the Court below and moved an application for bail, his bail application would take time for disposal and for a long time, the applicant would have to remain in Jail.
It is requested that the grievance of the applicant would be redressed, if a direction may be made by this Court to the Subordinate Court to dispose of the bail application of the applicant, at the earliest.
Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the contention of learned counsel for the applicant, however, could not confront his prayer, so far as the issuance of a direction to dispose of the bail application at the earliest.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, the only prayer which has been made by learned counsel for the applicant is that, a direction be given to the Subordinate Court to issue a direction that as and when, he will appear before the Court below and moved an application for bail, his bail application be decided at the earliest. Record further shows that against the applicant has been issued process, vide order dated 27.03.2018.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0274/2017 has directed all the Subordinate Courts of this country to dispose of the bail applications within a time framework and the same held as under:-
"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) 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) andLal 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 20 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 20 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.
Order Date :- 9.8.2019 Praveen