Allahabad High Court
Chandra Prakash Proprietor M/S Ashna ... 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. - 5728 of 2019 Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Proprietor M/S Ashna Feed Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Irfan Siddiqui,Anjum Ara Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
Heard learned counsel for applicant as well as Shri Ajay Kumar Singh Tomar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 03.06.2019 by which learned Additional Court No.5, Lucknow issued non-bailable warrant against the petitioner and also initiated the proceeding under Section 82-83 Cr.P.C. as well as issued the notice of sureties its consequential order against the petitioner in the Complaint Case No. 2525 of 2013, under Section Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station Vikas Nagar, District Lucknow (M/S Sona Gold Agro Chem Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chandra Prakash) and to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.
It is stated on behalf of the applicant that, applicant was earliest summoned by the Court of A.C.J.M., Court No.28, Lucknow to face trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and after appearing before the Court below, he obtained bail. However, thereafter, his Counsel engaged at the trial Court informed him that since the trial pertaining to the Negotiable Instrument Act is 'Quasi Civil', he will inform him, if his presence is required before the Court below. However, no information was given to him by his Counsel engaged at the trial Court.
It is further submitted that, thereafter, he could not contact his Counsel and noting his absence the Court below has issued non-bailable warrants as well as the proceedings of 82/83 Cr.P.C.
It is further submitted that, the applicant wants to co-operate in the early disposal of the case and he could not appear before the trial Court due to the circumstances, which were not in control of him as firstly, he was not informed by his Counsel engaged at the trial Court, pertaining to the date fixed in the matter. Secondly, he was out of the town in connection with earning his bread, therefore, he could not appear before the Court below.
It is further submitted that, no process, either summons or bailable warrants have been served on the applicant and the Court below has directly issued non-bailable warrants, which is not sustainable in the eye of the law. It is further submitted that, it is a merciful prayer that the applicant be given a chance to appear before the Court below and to co-operate in the trial and the applicant shall abide by any condition, which may be imposed by this Court as well as by the Subordinate Court and will not refrain from appearing before the Court below without any justifiable reason.
Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of the applicant on the ground that, the issuance of the applicant before the Court below was deliberate and no sufficient explanation of the same has been given.
In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant submits that, his only prayer is, and his grievance would be redressed, if a direction be issued to the Subordinate Court to decide his bail application at the earliest.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perusal of the record shows that, the applicant was granted bail in the criminal case, however, he could not appear before the Court below and consequently, non-bailable warrants and process under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. was issued against him. Now solitary prayer has been made by learned counsel for the applicant that, his grievance would be redressed, if a direction be issued to the Subordinate Court to dispose of 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 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) 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 15 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 15 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 15 days granted by this Court shall not in any case be further extended, on whatsoever grounds.
Order Date :- 9.8.2019 Praveen