High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:139451 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1261 of 2025 Applicant :- Faizan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised.
Legal Reasoning
2. None has appeared on behalf of the applicant to press the instant anticipatory bail application. However, Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer is present. 3. The instant anticipatory bail application was filed on 13.02.2025 and the case was adjourned on 25.02.2025 as no one appeared on behalf of the applicant. Again, the case was adjourned at the request of counsel for the applicant on 10.03.2025 and again, the case was adjourned on 25.03.2025 as no one appeared on behalf of the applicant. Again, adjournment was sought at the request of learned counsel for the applicant on 08.04.2025, 23.04.2025, 15.05.2025 and 07.07.2025 and so was the case on 30.07.2025. 4. A perusal of the record shows that this is the second anticipatory bail application. The first anticipatory bail application was decided by this Court on 22.09.2023. 5. Non-appearance of the counsel for the applicant amounts to professional misconduct. It also tantamount to bench hunting or forum shopping.
Decision
6. Sub-Section 5 of Section 438 Cr.P.C. [Uttar Pradesh Act 4 of 2019, s. 2 (w.e.f. 01.06.2019)] says that the anticipatory bail application be finally disposed of within thirty days of the date of such application. The Apex Court in para-73(k) of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 825 has held that the applications for anticipatory bail are expected to be disposed of within a period of six weeks. 7. At the time of framing of Section 438 Cr.P.C., the legislature has provided a limitation period of 30 days for disposal of anticipatory bail application. The said intention is just to avoid misuse of pendency of anticipatory bail application. 8. The Apex Court in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal, (2021) 12 SCC 612 has categorically held that courts shall not grant the adjournments in routine manner and mechanically and shall not be a party to cause for delay in dispensing the justice. It was also opined that the courts have to be diligent and take timely action in order to usher in efficient justice dispensation system and maintain faith in rule of law. 9. Mere pendency of the bail application cannot accrue any right in favour of the applicant. It cannot be allowed to swing years together in the cloak of pendency. The applicant cannot be permitted to dilute the stream of justice by repeatedly remaining absent from judicial proceedings without any reasonable explanation. Absence of any reason for non-appearance is blatant abuse of process of law, even though the order is available on the website of the High Court. 10. The resources of the Court which includes precious judicial time are scarce and already stretched beyond elastic limits. Valuable Court time, which is required to be engaged in adjudication of serious judicial action, is wasted on frivolous and vexatious litigation which is misconceived and is an abuse of the process of law. A judicial system has less than sufficient resources to afford justice without unreasonable delay to those having genuine grievances. Therefore, increasingly, the Courts have held that totally unjustified use of judicial time must be curbed and the party so wasting precious judicial resources, must be required to compensate not only the adversary but also the judicial system itself. 11. The Object of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is that a person should not be unnecessarily harassed or humiliated to satisfy personal vendetta or grudge of complainant or any other person operating the things directly or behind the curtains. It is well settled that discretionary power conferred by the legislature on this court cannot be put in a straitjacket formula, but such discretionary power either grant or refusal of anticipatory bail has to be exercised carefully in appropriate cases with circumspection on the basis of the available material after evaluating the facts of the particular case and considering other relevant factors (nature and gravity of accusation, role attributed to accused, conduct of accused, criminal antecedents, possibility of the applicant to flee from Justice, apprehension of tampering of the witnesses or threat to the complainant, impact of grant of anticipatory bail on investigation, trial or society, etc.) with meticulous precision maintaining balance between the conflicting interest, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and the larger interest of the society as offence is against it not a particular individual. 12. A Division Bench of this Court in Ashwani Kumar Srivastava v. D. Sen Gupta Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Bombay, 2008 SCC OnLine All 723 has categorically expressed in para-22: "22. ………… Learned Advocates being officers of the Court owe a duty not only to the Court but to their clients also in getting the cases decided expeditiously so as to achieve the objective of dispensation of justice. The time of the Court is precious for the reason that it is public's time and must be utilised for adjudicating matters which have substance and need to be decided at the earliest. The arm of justice must reach the aggrieved person dispensing justice speedily. If time of the Court is consumed, and that too, a lion's share, by frivolous and bogus litigation, it is bound to take away the time which could have been utilised for really needy litigants. The time has come when the learned members of the Bar should rise to the occasion and discourage frivolous and bogus litigation by telling their clients that they would not be a party to such kind of litigation. Frivolous litigation only adds burden on the Court and deprives real litigants from the shower of justice at a time when he really needs it. Needless to say, it would be healthier for institution in particular and public at large and this pious institution would be able to achieve its constitutional obligation of dispensation of justice in deserving cases with greater pace." 13. It appears that the applicant has lost interest in pursuing the matter. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court declines to entertain this anticipatory bail application. The application is, accordingly, dismissed for want of prosecution. 15. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the concerned Court/authority for necessary information and compliance, forthwith. 16. Interim protection granted, if any, stands vacated. 17. It is always open for the applicant to file a regular bail application before the court concerned in accordance to law, if required. Order Date :- 14.8.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad