Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2201 (ALL)

Sanjay Sahu v. State of U. P.

2016-06-15

SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2016
JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. Heard learned counsels for parties and perused the record. 2. The only grievance of applicant is that he is in jail since 18.05.2016 and filed Bail application No. 1987 of 2016 in Case Crime No. 802 of 2016 under Sections 401, 411 and 414 I.P.C. in the Court of Sessions Judge, Allahabad on 09.06.2016 but instead of disposing of the said application expeditiously or within a reasonable time, Court below has fixed 29.06.2016 without there being any reason. 3. Learned A.G.A. stated that since date has been fixed by Court, prosecution has nothing to do in the matter. He, however, stated that Public Prosecutor did not seek adjournment and the date has been fixed only by Court. 4. This is a serious matter. This Court has always favoured personal liberty to individuals and unnecessary detention or custody in jail is not permitted except when it is extremely necessary. 5. This Court in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 21577 of 2014 (Ravi Kumar Agarwal and another Vs. State of U.P. and another) decided on 18.06.2014 with respect to disposal of Bail Applications has said as under: "12. Looking to the above aspect, in my view, whenever bail application is filed before the Magistrate/Court, as the case may be, whether under Section 437 or under Section 439 Cr.P.C. etc., the same shall be dealt with immediately and all out attempts shall be made to pass a reasoned order by application of mind thereon on that day, unless, of course, there is requirement of prior notice to other side and such notice has not been given or the other side did not find sufficient time to collect relevant information from the Police etc. for assisting the Court. On all these aspects the matter has been clarified by larger Bench of this Court in Smt. Amrawati and Another (supra) and a Single Judge judgment in Trilok Chand (supra) which must be looked into and followed. However, in Courts where Advocates are observing strike or otherwise, abstaining from Court, bail applications shall not be adjourned for this reason alone and the same shall be dealt with on merits, as far as practicable. Some directions/guidelines in this regard are stated hereunder: I. If in a particular Court, Strike in general continues, Magistrate/Court shall ensure hearing of bail applications in Court/Jail, as the case may be. II. Some directions/guidelines in this regard are stated hereunder: I. If in a particular Court, Strike in general continues, Magistrate/Court shall ensure hearing of bail applications in Court/Jail, as the case may be. II. If the accused is present in Court, the Court shall permit him/her to address it and after hearing him/her and perusal of record it shall pass appropriate order on the bail application. III. Deferment of bail application should be only if the accused makes a statement, which shall be recorded in writing by the Court concerned that bail application should be deferred till his/her counsel is available and he/she is ready to continue in detention. IV. If the accused is not present in court having not been brought from jail, the Court shall ensure its sitting in jail itself for disposal of bail application on that very date, and with the consent of accused in jail, his/her bail application be disposed of. There also deferment shall only be on statement made by the accused which shall be recorded by the Court concerned. V. If the Court finds that some relevant information is required from prosecution, and for valid reasons it is not available on the same day, the application may be taken up on the next day but there should not be a general long adjournment as a matter of course. VI. Personal liberty of individuals must be given due credit, respect and honour. 13. The Court below is, therefore, directed to dispose of Bail Application No. 1122 of 2014 on the next date fixed, and the case shall not be adjourned only on the ground that Advocates are on strike or that prosecution is seeking adjournment as a matter of course. 14. It was a simple matter and should not have come to this Court but due to unfortunate inaction and lethargy on the part of the court below, the applicants have been compelled and forced to seek remedy before this Court having no other alternative. The State investigating agency and the prosecution are equally responsible since they have also not shown attitude of cooperation for expeditious disposal of bail application. In view thereof, I am clearly of the opinion that it is a fit case where the applicants must be compensated for avoidable expenses it has met in litigation before this Court. 15. The application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid directions. In view thereof, I am clearly of the opinion that it is a fit case where the applicants must be compensated for avoidable expenses it has met in litigation before this Court. 15. The application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid directions. The applicants shall also be entitled to cost which I quantify to Rs. Ten Thousand, which shall be paid by respondent no. 1 to the applicants within a month." (emphasis added) 6. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that despite aforesaid directions given by this Court which have been reiterated in several other judgments, Trial Courts are not adhering to the said directions and at leisure are adjourning disposal of Bail Applications, giving long dates without any justification therefor. This is a serious matter. 7. Court below is directed to prepone date for disposal of aforesaid Bail Application of applicant with consent of learned counsel for parties. 8. Let the Bail Application of applicant be taken up for disposal on 17.06.2016 and it shall be disposed of on that date after hearing parties. 9. Considering the conduct and attitude of Court concerned, I am of the view that on administrative side, Registrar General shall call upon explanation of concerned Court as to why disposal of Bail Applications is being adjourned for a long time. After obtaining explanation, same shall be placed before Hon'ble Chief Justice for further and appropriate action/direction. 10. With the aforesaid directions/observations, this application is disposed of.