top of page
It is the constitutional responsibility of High Courts to monitor the functioning of subordinate courts to ensure timely disposal of cases
Bittu Vs State of UP
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10528 of 2020
About/from the judgment:
While deliberating over a matter concerning quashing of a non-bailable order issued by a subordinate court, the Court issued directions for speedy completion of the trial and set a timeline for disposal of bail application in the present matter.
The applicant has prayed for the quashing of the impugned order dated 04-12-2019 and 29-01-2020 passed by the subordinate court of Addl. Civil Judge, Meerut in connection with the FIR registered for offences committed under Sections 457, 380 and 311 of the Penal Code, 1860. Counsel for the applicant, Sanjay Kr. Srivastava has contended that the applicant had obtained bail earlier but post the submission of charge-sheet, the applicant remained oblivious to the same. Consequently, a non-bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant via the aforementioned orders. Further, the applicant has expressed his willingness to appear before the Court.
The Court after perusal of the facts, circumstances and the arguments advanced observed that considering what has transpired in the present matter, it would only be appropriate for the subordinate court to extend the benefit of interim bail if it deems fit in accordance with the merits. As it is a well-settled position in law, if the applicant surrenders within 45 (forty-five) days before the court and subsequently if his bail application is filed then the same would be adjudicated and decided by the court with a speaking and reasoned order. The Court relied heavily on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hussain v. Union of India, (2017) 5 SCC 702, the relevant paragraphs of which have been quoted below for reference-
“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.”
In light of the above, the Court has issued the following instructions in the present matter-
(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.
The Court also directed that no coercive action be taken against the applicant for a period of 45 days starting from the date of this order. Considering Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Brahm Singh v. State of U.P., (1972) 3 SCC 388, the Court ruled that the concerned subordinate court(s) has to necessarily abide by the guidelines laid down in the aforementioned cases of Brahm Singh and Hussain.
With the following instructions, the present application has been disposed of by the Court.
Read the Judgment
Knowledge and content of about almost all their respective descriptions are borrowed from law-related blogs and websites, we, therefore, wish to give proper credit to all the respective law-related blogs and websites like LiveLaw, Bar and Bench, LatestLaws, PathLegal, FirstLaw, Lawctopus, IndianKanoon, Manupatra, LegallyIndia etc.. Many of the judgments are also taken from them websites of Hon'ble Supreme Court and other respective Hon'ble High Courts!
Formats for use
bottom of page