High Court

On 18.09.2024 the following order was passed in first bail application of the applicant registered as Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11035 of 2024:- "Matter is taken up in the revised call. Heard Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA-I for the State. By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.168 of 2023 at Police Station- Mahuwadeeh, District-Deoria under Sections 302 I.P.C. and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. The applicant is in jail since 15.07.2023. The applicant has been identified as the principal offender who committed murder of the deceased. The applicant was last seen with the deceased at a time proximate to the death of the latter. Various incriminating articles including the weapon of assault and bloodstained clothes of the deceased were recovered from the applicant. The postmortem report corroborates the prosecution case. The offence is grave. There is likelihood that the applicant had committed the offence. At this stage, no case for bail is made out. Without going into the merits of the case, the bail application is dismissed. Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the trial is moving at a snail's pace and shows no sign of early conclusion. The applicant is not responsible for the delay in the trial. The prosecution is deliberately delaying the conduct of the trial to prolong the incarceration of the applicant. Various other aspects delaying of the trial have also been highlighted including the failure of the trial court to faithfully implement the mandate of Section 309 Cr.P.C. Other bottlenecks which cause delay in trials in the State of U.P. like failure of the police to promptly serve the summons and execute coercive measures issued by the trial court to compel the appearance of the witnesses have also been brought to the notice of the Court. The submissions of the learned counsel are well founded and are liable to be addressed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, interest of justice will be served by directing the learned trial court to expedite the trial. Though no specific time frame to conclude the trial has been set out in the Cr.P.C., yet the legislative intent of Section 309 Cr.P.C. is explicit. The scheme of the provision clearly shows that the legislative intent is to conclude the trial in an expeditious time frame. In the facts of this case, the learned trial court shall make all endeavours to conclude the trial expeditiously. Preferably the trial court shall set for itself a reasonable time frame to conclude the trial say one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The trial court has also to be conscious of the rights of the accused persons and is under obligation of law to ensure that all expeditious, necessary and coercive measures as per law are adopted to ensure the presence of witnesses. Counsels or parties who delay or impede the proceedings should not only be discouraged from doing so but in appropriate cases exemplary costs should also be imposed on such parties/ counsel. All witnesses and counsels are directed to cooperate with the trial proceedings. The learned trial court shall issue summons by regular process as per Section 62 Cr.P.C. and also by registered post as provided under Section 69 Cr.P.C. to expedite the trial. The learned trial court shall promptly take out all strict coercive measures against all the witnesses in accordance with law who fail to appear in the trial proceeding. Counsels or parties who delay or impede the proceedings should not only be discouraged from doing so but in appropriate cases exemplary costs should also be imposed on such parties/ counsel. The police authorities shall ensure that warrants or any coercive measures as per law taken out by the learned trial court to ensure that the attendance of the witnesses are promptly executed. The Superintendent of Police, Deoria shall file an affidavit before the trial court on the date fixed regarding status of execution of the warrants/service of summons taken out by the learned trial court. The delay in the trials caused by the failure of the police authorities to serve summons or execute coercive measures to compel the appearance of witnesses at the trial despite a statutory mandate, is an issue of grave concern. The said issue had arisen for consideration before this Court in Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir Vs. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16871 of 2023) & Jitendra v. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9126 of 2023) and was decided by the judgements dated 24.08.2023 & 20.12.2023 respectively. This Court in Bhanwar Singh (supra) & Jitendra (supra) had issued certain directions to the police authorities regarding their statutory duty to promptly serve summons and execute coercive processes to compel the appearance of witnesses. The Director General of Police, Government of U.P. as well as Principal Secretary (Home), Government of U.P. had taken out relevant orders in compliance of judgements in Bhanwar Singh (supra) & Jitendra (supra) and nominated the Senior Superintendent of Police of the concerned districts as the nodal officials for implementing the said judgments. The counsels as well as the learned trial court are directed to comply with the directions issued by this Court in Noor Alam Vs. State of U.P. rendered in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 53159 of 2021. In case any strike happens during the course of the trial, the learned trial court is directed to ensure full compliance of the directions issued in Noor Alam (supra) to prevent delay in the trial. In case the police authorities are failing to comply with the directions issued by this Court in Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir (supra) & Jitendra (supra) and do not implement the said directions of the Director General of Police, Government of U.P. & the Home Secretary, Government of U.P. in regard to service of summons and execution of coercive measures to compel the appearance of witnesses, the learned trial court shall direct the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police to file an affidavit in this regard. The learned trial court shall be under an obligation to examine whether the judgements of this Court in Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir (supra) & Jitendra (supra) as well as directions of Director General of Police, Government of U.P. & the Home Secretary, Government of U.P. issued in compliance thereof have been implemented or not and to take appropriate action as per law. The learned trial court shall also take appropriate measures in law after receipt of such affidavit which may include summoning the concerned officials in person. It is further directed that in case any accused person who has been enlarged on bail does not cooperate in the trial or adopts dilatory tactics, the learned trial court shall record a finding to this effect and cancel the bail without recourse to this Court. The trial judge shall submit a fortnightly report on the progress of trial and the steps taken to comply with this order to the learned District Judge. A copy of this order be communicated to the learned trial judge through the learned District Judge, Deoria as well as Superintendent of Police, Deoria by the Registrar (Compliance) by e-mail. " Shri Gaurav Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the directions issued by this Court on 18.09.2024 have not been complied with. The trial is moving at a snail's pace and shows no sign of early conclusion. The applicant is not responsible for the delay in the trial proceedings. The prosecution is deliberately delaying the conduct of the trial to prolong the incarceration of the applicant. Inordinate delay in concluding trial will lead to an indefinite detention of the applicant. The right of the applicant to speedy trial has been violated. Non compliance of the directions of this Court by the trial court is a matter of grave concern. The learned District Judge shall look into the matter personally regarding non compliance of the directions of this Court and send a report regarding the steps taken by the trial court to comply with the directions of this Court. Needless to add, none of the above observations shall be construed adversely against any judicial officer unless the learned District Judge comes to any other conclusion. Furthermore, learned trial judge shall send a report regarding the status of the trial and cause for the delay in concluding the trial in Case Crime No. 168 of 2023 at Police Station Mahuwadeeh, District Deoria under Section 302 IPC and Section 3/25 Arms Act and also the following details in tabulated form:- (1) Dates on which chargesheet was filed and the charge was framed. (2) Number of prosecution witnesses in the chargesheet. (3) Number and particulars (i.e. name, nature of witness like eye witness and expert witness etc.) of prosecution witnesses proposed to be examined as per the charge sheet. (4) List of proposed prosecution witnesses/calendar submitted before the trial court for examination during the trial. (5) Names and number of prosecution witnesses who have been examined before the trial court with dates. (6) Names and number of witnesses who have been summoned but have not attended the trial proceedings on the appointed dates with dates. (7) Names and number of witnesses against whom coercive measures have been taken out with dates. The aforesaid reports shall be duly co-signed by learned District Judge, Deoria after due perusal. Put up this case on 22.04.2025 in the additional cause list. A copy of this order be communicated to the learned District Judge, Deoria by the Registrar (Compliance) by e- mail. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Jaswant

On 18.09.2024 the following order was passed in first bail application of the applicant registered as Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11035 of 2024:- "Matter is taken up in the revised call. Heard Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA-I for the State. By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.168 of 2023 at Police Station- Mahuwadeeh, District-Deoria under Sections 302 I.P.C. and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. The applicant is in jail since 15.07.2023. The applicant has been identified as the principal offender who committed murder of the deceased. The applicant was last seen with the deceased at a time proximate to the death of the latter. Various incriminating articles including the weapon of assault and bloodstained clothes of the deceased were recovered from the applicant. The postmortem report corroborates the prosecution case. The offence is grave. There is likelihood that the applicant had committed the offence. At this stage, no case for bail is made out. Without going into the merits of the case, the bail application is dismissed. Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the trial is moving at a snail's pace and shows no sign of early conclusion. The applicant is not responsible for the delay in the trial. The prosecution is deliberately delaying the conduct of the trial to prolong the incarceration of the applicant. Various other aspects delaying of the trial have also been highlighted including the failure of the trial court to faithfully implement the mandate of Section 309 Cr.P.C. Other bottlenecks which cause delay in trials in the State of U.P. like failure of the police to promptly serve the summons and execute coercive measures issued by the trial court to compel the appearance of the witnesses have also been brought to the notice of the Court. The submissions of the learned counsel are well founded and are liable to be addressed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, interest of justice will be served by directing the learned trial court to expedite the trial. Though no specific time frame to conclude the trial has been set out in the Cr.P.C., yet the legislative intent of Section 309 Cr.P.C. is explicit. The scheme of the provision clearly shows that the legislative intent is to conclude the trial in an expeditious time frame. In the facts of this case, the learned trial court shall make all endeavours to conclude the trial expeditiously. Preferably the trial court shall set for itself a reasonable time frame to conclude the trial say one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The trial court has also to be conscious of the rights of the accused persons and is under obligation of law to ensure that all expeditious, necessary and coercive measures as per law are adopted to ensure the presence of witnesses. Counsels or parties who delay or impede the proceedings should not only be discouraged from doing so but in appropriate cases exemplary costs should also be imposed on such parties/ counsel. All witnesses and counsels are directed to cooperate with the trial proceedings. The learned trial court shall issue summons by regular process as per Section 62 Cr.P.C. and also by registered post as provided under Section 69 Cr.P.C. to expedite the trial. The learned trial court shall promptly take out all strict coercive measures against all the witnesses in accordance with law who fail to appear in the trial proceeding. Counsels or parties who delay or impede the proceedings should not only be discouraged from doing so but in appropriate cases exemplary costs should also be imposed on such parties/ counsel. The police authorities shall ensure that warrants or any coercive measures as per law taken out by the learned trial court to ensure that the attendance of the witnesses are promptly executed. The Superintendent of Police, Deoria shall file an affidavit before the trial court on the date fixed regarding status of execution of the warrants/service of summons taken out by the learned trial court. The delay in the trials caused by the failure of the police authorities to serve summons or execute coercive measures to compel the appearance of witnesses at the trial despite a statutory mandate, is an issue of grave concern. The said issue had arisen for consideration before this Court in Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir Vs. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16871 of 2023) & Jitendra v. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9126 of 2023) and was decided by the judgements dated 24.08.2023 & 20.12.2023 respectively. This Court in Bhanwar Singh (supra) & Jitendra (supra) had issued certain directions to the police authorities regarding their statutory duty to promptly serve summons and execute coercive processes to compel the appearance of witnesses. The Director General of Police, Government of U.P. as well as Principal Secretary (Home), Government of U.P. had taken out relevant orders in compliance of judgements in Bhanwar Singh (supra) & Jitendra (supra) and nominated the Senior Superintendent of Police of the concerned districts as the nodal officials for implementing the said judgments. The counsels as well as the learned trial court are directed to comply with the directions issued by this Court in Noor Alam Vs. State of U.P. rendered in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 53159 of 2021. In case any strike happens during the course of the trial, the learned trial court is directed to ensure full compliance of the directions issued in Noor Alam (supra) to prevent delay in the trial. In case the police authorities are failing to comply with the directions issued by this Court in Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir (supra) & Jitendra (supra) and do not implement the said directions of the Director General of Police, Government of U.P. & the Home Secretary, Government of U.P. in regard to service of summons and execution of coercive measures to compel the appearance of witnesses, the learned trial court shall direct the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police to file an affidavit in this regard. The learned trial court shall be under an obligation to examine whether the judgements of this Court in Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir (supra) & Jitendra (supra) as well as directions of Director General of Police, Government of U.P. & the Home Secretary, Government of U.P. issued in compliance thereof have been implemented or not and to take appropriate action as per law. The learned trial court shall also take appropriate measures in law after receipt of such affidavit which may include summoning the concerned officials in person. It is further directed that in case any accused person who has been enlarged on bail does not cooperate in the trial or adopts dilatory tactics, the learned trial court shall record a finding to this effect and cancel the bail without recourse to this Court. The trial judge shall submit a fortnightly report on the progress of trial and the steps taken to comply with this order to the learned District Judge. A copy of this order be communicated to the learned trial judge through the learned District Judge, Deoria as well as Superintendent of Police, Deoria by the Registrar (Compliance) by e-mail. " Shri Gaurav Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the directions issued by this Court on 18.09.2024 have not been complied with. The trial is moving at a snail's pace and shows no sign of early conclusion. The applicant is not responsible for the delay in the trial proceedings. The prosecution is deliberately delaying the conduct of the trial to prolong the incarceration of the applicant. Inordinate delay in concluding trial will lead to an indefinite detention of the applicant. The right of the applicant to speedy trial has been violated. Non compliance of the directions of this Court by the trial court is a matter of grave concern. The learned District Judge shall look into the matter personally regarding non compliance of the directions of this Court and send a report regarding the steps taken by the trial court to comply with the directions of this Court. Needless to add, none of the above observations shall be construed adversely against any judicial officer unless the learned District Judge comes to any other conclusion. Furthermore, learned trial judge shall send a report regarding the status of the trial and cause for the delay in concluding the trial in Case Crime No. 168 of 2023 at Police Station Mahuwadeeh, District Deoria under Section 302 IPC and Section 3/25 Arms Act and also the following details in tabulated form:- (1) Dates on which chargesheet was filed and the charge was framed. (2) Number of prosecution witnesses in the chargesheet. (3) Number and particulars (i.e. name, nature of witness like eye witness and expert witness etc.) of prosecution witnesses proposed to be examined as per the charge sheet. (4) List of proposed prosecution witnesses/calendar submitted before the trial court for examination during the trial. (5) Names and number of prosecution witnesses who have been examined before the trial court with dates. (6) Names and number of witnesses who have been summoned but have not attended the trial proceedings on the appointed dates with dates. (7) Names and number of witnesses against whom coercive measures have been taken out with dates. The aforesaid reports shall be duly co-signed by learned District Judge, Deoria after due perusal. Put up this case on 22.04.2025 in the additional cause list. A copy of this order be communicated to the learned District Judge, Deoria by the Registrar (Compliance) by e- mail. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Jaswant