Back
Allahabad Condemns Decades of Pendency While Granting Bail in Old
The of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, has delivered a scathing critique regarding the prolonged pendency of cases within the judicial system. Presiding over an in a dating back to , Hon'ble Rajeev Bharti expressed deep concern over the systemic delays that continue to subvert the constitutional rights of litigants.
A Case Frozen in Time
The matter involves an FIR lodged at the , District Bahraich, originally registered in under . The prosecution had alleged that the accused, Ajay Kumar @ Chingi and Ram Chandra, had abducted an individual named Bittu, who was 15 at the time, under the pretext of marriage. Although a was filed in , the proceedings suffered from prolonged institutional dormancy. Years later, after an unsuccessful attempt to the charges via an application under , the resumed the issuance of in .
The Argument for Reconciliation
Counsel for the applicants argued that the case stems from an incident that occurred over two decades ago. Crucially, it was submitted that the victim had voluntarily accompanied the lead accused and that the two had since solemnized their marriage. The couple is now leading a settled, peaceful life and has been blessed with three children. The State’s counsel opposed the bail application but could not refute the fact that this long-standing case, which had remained effectively stagnant for years, had reached a point where the core allegations were superseded by the passage of time and the reconciliation of the parties involved.
Constitutional Rights and the Shadow of Delay
In its analysis, the Court emphasized that judicial efficiency is not merely an administrative goal but a constitutional obligation. The drew upon the precedent set by the in
Musheer Alam versus The State of U.P. and another
(2025) to underscore the necessity of protecting the liberty of the accused when proceedings become excessively delayed. The bench articulated that the
"
"
is a fundamental component of
, and failing to uphold this right risks rendering the entire criminal justice process performative.
Key Observations
The judgment contained several pointed remarks regarding the state of the judiciary:
*
"This Court finds it deeply disturbing that the present criminal case, arising out of an FIR registered in the year
, has remained pending for over two decades without reaching its logical conclusion."
*
"Such an extraordinary delay is wholly incompatible with the constitutional guarantee of a
under
."
*
"The oft-quoted expression that litigants receive nothing but '
' is not expected to become the hallmark of the criminal justice delivery system."
Final Ruling
The allowed the , directing the applicants to surrender before the within two weeks. Upon their surrender, they are to be released on . The Court explicitly stated that these observations are intended to serve the interests of justice and do not preclude the trial judge from forming an independent opinion based on the evidence presented during the trial. This decision marks a significant intervention, reminding the lower courts that .
