ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
SANJU – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
A482/15204/2022
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTION 482 - QUASHING OF CHARGE SHEET - BAIL APPLICATION - TIMELINE FOR DISPOSAL
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed a 482 Cr.P.C. application to quash the charge sheet and entire proceedings in a case under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, and Section 5(J)(2)/6 of the POCSO Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the lower courts to decide the applicant's bail application within a specific time frame, as per the guidelines laid down in the case of Hussain and another (2017) 5 SCC 702.
Issues: 1. Whether the charge sheet and proceedings should be quashed? 2. Whether the bail application should be decided within a specific time frame?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the applicant had given up on pressing the case on merit and disposed of the application. 2. The court relied on the judgment in Hussain and another (2017) 5 SCC 702, which emphasized the importance of speedy disposal of cases and set timelines for the disposal of bail applications and trials.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the 482 Cr.P.C. application and directed the lower courts to decide the applicant's bail application within 7 days, failing which they would have to provide justifiable reasons and record them on the order sheet.
Court No. - 67
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15204 of 2022
Applicant :- Sanju
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Lavkush Kumar Bhatt
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arvind Kumar
Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned
A.G.A. and perused the record.
By means of the present 482 Cr.P.C. application, the prayer
sought by the applicant is to allow the present application and
quash the charge sheet dated 19.04.2022 as well as entire
proceedings of Special Session Trial No.50 of 2022 (State Vs.
Sanju) in Case Crime No.0057 of 2022, under Sections 363,
366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 5 (J) (2)/6 of POCSO Act, Police
Station Fatehgarh Kotwali, District Farrukhabad pending in the
Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special
Judge POCSO Act, Farrukhabad.
After arguing the case for quite some time at length and pitted
against certain observations made by the Court, learned counsel
for the applicant himself has given up to address the Court on
merits of the case and prayed, that the purpose of his client
would suffice, if a direction may be given to the courts below to
decide his bail application within specific time frame.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and
the arguments advanced, this Court is of the opinion that since
learned counsel for the applicant has already given up that he
does not want to press the case on merit, in the fitness of
circumstances, this 482 Cr.P.C. application stands disposed of
with the direction that the court below would extend the benefit
of interim bail (if the court concerned deems it fit according to
the merit of each case) as contemplated in the law laid down by
this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of
U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement
passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322
(SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. after the
applicant surrenders within 15 days before the court and if his
bail application is filed, the same shall be adjudicated and
decided by the courts below with speaking and reasoned order,
strictly in accordance with law, in the light of the judgment
given by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hussain and
another Vs. Union of India reported in (2017) 5 SCC Page-
702, relevant extract of which reads as under :-
"….......Judicial service as well as legal service are not like
any other services. They are missions for serving the society.
The mission is not achieved if the litigant who is waiting in
the queue does not get his turn for a long time".......
"Decision of cases of under-trials in custody is one of the
priority areas. There are obstructions at every level in
enforcement of right of speedy trial; vested interests or
unscrupulous elements try to delay the proceedings"....... "In
spite of all odds, determined efforts are required at every level
for success of the mission"..... "The Presiding Officer of a
court cannot rest in a state of helplessness. This is the
constitutional responsibility of the State to provide necessary
infrastructure and of the High Courts to monitor the
functioning of subordinate courts to ensure timely disposal of
cases."
To satiate speedy disposal of the cases, the courts below are
issued following directions in accordance with the observations
made in the case of Hussain and another (Supra):
(i)Bail applications be disposed of normally within one week :
(ii) 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.
(iii)................................................................................................
.......;
(iv).................................................................................................
..
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.