# Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 9 ILRA 1048
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-24
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. IInd Bail Application No. 16871 of 2023
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bhanwar-singh-karamvir-v-state-of-u-p-50724
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Criminal Law-Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973-Section 439 - Constitution of India,
1950- Article 21--- Prolonged incarceration of
accused persons due to delay in trials violates
the fundamental liberties of the accused
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution
of India, when the trial is inordinately delayed
for no fault of the accused. Right to a speedy
trial is a fundamental right flowing from Article
21 of the Constitution of India---Chapter VI of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides
the procedure for compelling appearance of the
accused and witnesses to participate in the trial.
The provisions in Chapter VI of Cr.P.C.
contemplate a graduated process of coercive
measures to compel the appearance of the
accused and witnesses. The process is initiated
with issuance of summons which is to be
followed by bailable warrants. The measures are
escalated by taking out non bailable warrants.
The final stages in the process are proclamation
and
attachment---Failure
of
the
police
authorities to serve summons or execute
bailable warrants or non bailable warrants is
looked askance by the statute and the courts
alike---The courts are duly empowered under
the Code to take out penal proceedings against
defaulting police officials for failing to serve
summons or execute bailable warrants or nonbailable warrants. (Para12, 17, 24, 25 & 51)

Bail application allowed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1048 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2023) 9 ILRA 1048
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Criminal Misc. IInd Bail Application No. 16871 of
2023
with
Criminal Misc. IInd Bail Application No. 27375 of
2023
with
Criminal Misc. IInd Bail Application No. 29855 of
2021
with
Criminal Misc. IInd Bail Application No. 29718 of
2023

Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Bratendra Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Criminal Law-Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973-Section 439 - Constitution of India,
1950- Article 21--- Prolonged incarceration of
accused persons due to delay in trials violates
the fundamental liberties of the accused
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution
of India, when the trial is inordinately delayed
for no fault of the accused. Right to a speedy
trial is a fundamental right flowing from Article
21 of the Constitution of India---Chapter VI of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides
the procedure for compelling appearance of the
accused and witnesses to participate in the trial.
The provisions in Chapter VI of Cr.P.C.
contemplate a graduated process of coercive
measures to compel the appearance of the
accused and witnesses. The process is initiated
with issuance of summons which is to be
followed by bailable warrants. The measures are
escalated by taking out non bailable warrants.
The final stages in the process are proclamation
and
attachment---Failure
of
the
police
authorities to serve summons or execute
bailable warrants or non bailable warrants is
looked askance by the statute and the courts
alike---The courts are duly empowered under
the Code to take out penal proceedings against
defaulting police officials for failing to serve
summons or execute bailable warrants or nonbailable warrants. (Para12, 17, 24, 25 & 51)

Bail application allowed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

1. Gudikanti Narasimhulu & ors.Vs Public
Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh
(1978) 1 SCC 240

2. Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain Vs St. (NCT of
Delhi) Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 915
of 2023

3.
Hussainara
Khatoon
&
ors.Vs
Home
Secretary, St. of Bihar 1980 (1) SCC 81

4. Anil Gaur @ Sonu @ Sonu Tomar Vs St. of
U.P (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16961 of
2022, 2022 SCC OnLine All 623

5. Ajeet Chaudhary Vs St. of U.P 2021
SCCOnLine All 17

6. Junaid Vs St. of U.P 2021 (6) ADJ 511

7. Monish Vs St. of U.P Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 55026 of 2021

8. Jitendra Vs St. of U.P Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 9126 of 2023

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1.

The
issue
that
arises
for
consideration in all connected matters is a
recurring theme in the criminal law process
in the State of Uttar Pradesh and is arising
regularly in bail applications before this
Court. The failure of the police to serve
summons and execute coercive processes
issued by the court and its consequences on
9 All. Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir Vs. State of U.P.
1049
the fundamental rights of liberty of an
accused and fair administration of right of
bail arise in these cases directly have to be
addressed squarely. The status reports sent
by the learned trial courts reveal that the
trials are being delayed as the police
authorities did not serve summons and
execute coercive measures in a timely
manner to compel appearance of the
witnesses on the appointed date in the trial.
The status reports are made part of the
records.

2. Right of bail arises from Section
439 of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973.

3. With coming of the Constitution
and development of constitutional law, the
statutory domain of bails transformed into
constitutional jurisdiction.

4. The right to bail is derived from
statute but cannot be removed from
constitutional oversight.

5. Good authority has long entrenched
the right of an accused to seek bail in the
charter of fundamental rights assured by
the Constitution of India.

6. Bail jurisprudence was firmly
embedded in the constitutional regime of
fundamental
rights
in
Gudikanti
Narasimhulu and Others Vs. Public
Prosecutor,
High
Court
of
Andhra
Pradesh2. Casting an enduring proposition
of law in eloquent speech, V.R. Krishna
Iyer, J. held:

"1. Bail or jail?" - at the pretrial or post-conviction stage - belongs to
the blurred area of the criminal justice
system and largely hinges on the hunch of
the
Bench,
otherwise
called
judicial
discretion. The Code is cryptic on this topic
and the Court prefers to be tacit, be the
order custodial or not. And yet, the issue is
one of liberty, justice, public safety and
burden of the public treasury, all of which
insist that a developed jurisprudence of bail
is integral to a socially sensitized judicial
process. As Chamber Judge in this summit
court I have to deal with this uncanalised
case-flow, ad hoc response to the docket
being the flickering candle light. So it is
desirable that the subject is disposed of on
basic principle, not improvised brevity
draped as discretion. Personal liberty,
deprived when bail is refused, is too
precious a value of our constitutional
system recognised under Article 21 that the
curial power to negate it is a great trust
exercisable, not casually but judicially,
with lively concern for the cost to the
individual
and
the
community.
To
glamorize
impressionistic
orders
as
discretionary may, on occasions, make a
litigative gamble decisive of a fundamental
right. After all, personal liberty of an
accused
or
convict
is
fundamental,
suffering lawful eclipse only in terms of
"procedure established by law". The last
four words of Article 21 are the life of that
human right."

7. More recently the interplay of
constitutional liberty assured under Article
21 and statutory right of bail of an
undertrial prisoner was affirmed by the
Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim @
Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)3.

8. Engagement of fundamental rights
in bail jurisprudence is a constant in
constitutional law.

9. The Court while examining a bail
application has to balance and reconcile
diverse objectives, namely, the imperative
1050 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of constitutional liberties of an accused, the
necessity of bringing an offender to fair and
speedy justice, and the mandate of
upholding the law.

10. Parameters of bail are well settled
by judicial precedents and practices achieve
the aforesaid aims in full measure.

11. Some of the settled parameters of
grant of bail include nature and gravity of
the offences, and the likelihood of an
accused having committed the offence. The
possibility of the accused reoffending,
influencing witnesses and tampering with
evidence or being a flight risk are also
relevant factors to be considered while
deciding a bail application.

12.
 Prolonged
incarceration
of
accused persons due to delay in trials
violates the fundamental liberties of the
accused guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, when the trial is
inordinately delayed for no fault of the
accused. Right to a speedy trial is a
fundamental right flowing from Article 21
of
the
Constitution
of
India
[See
Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Home
Secretary, State of Bihar4].

13. Right to a speedy trial is the
mandate of constitutional law. Delays in
trials are a reality of the justice system.

14. Accordingly, the courts while
deciding the bail applications also examine
the period of internment of an accused and
the status of trial. (See Mohd. Muslim @
Hussain (supra). Further, in the facts and
circumstances of cases, directions are also
issued to the trial courts as a matter of
accepted judicial practice to expedite the trial
in order to serve justice. The said criteria and
manner of exercise of bail jurisdiction are
consistent
with
constitutional
values
embedded in the constitutional text and those
evolved by constitutional law. In the process
the courts realise the fundamental rights of an
accused to a speedy trial and administer fair
justice in bail jurisdiction and uphold the rule
of law.

15. Legal issues which have a direct
impact on the liberty of the prisoner and
administration of fair justice in bail
jurisdiction
often
arise
squarely
for
consideration in the facts of a bail
application. Declining to decide such issues
on the footing of a narrow interpretation of
bail jurisdiction will amount to abdication
of constitutional obligations of this Court
and will result in miscarriage of justice.
The narrative has the benefit of authority.
This Court in Anil Gaur @ Sonu @ Sonu
Tomar Vs. State of U.P (Criminal Misc.
Bail Application No. 16961 of 2022)5
fortified the constitutional jurisdiction of
this
Court
while
sitting
in
bail
determination arising from Section 439
Cr.P.C.:

"2. While discharging judicial
functions in bail determination

this Court is not denuded of its
status as a constitutional court. The court is
under a constitutional obligation to address
various legal and constitutional issues which
impact the grant of bail if they arise in the
facts of a case."

16. Reference can also be profitably
made to Ajeet Chaudhary Vs. State of
U.P.6; Junaid Vs. State of U.P.7 and
Monish Vs. State of U.P.8, in which
questions of law and constitutional liberty
had arisen in bail applications. The issues
were duly determined which enabled the
court to streamline the process of fair
administration of the bail jurisdiction.
9 All. Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir Vs. State of U.P.
1051

17. Chapter VI of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides the
procedure for compelling appearance of the
accused and witnesses to participate in the
trial. The provisions in Chapter VI of
Cr.P.C. contemplate a graduated process of
coercive
measures
to
compel
the
appearance of the accused and witnesses.
The process is initiated with issuance of
summons which is to be followed by
bailable
warrants.
The
measures
are
escalated by taking out non bailable
warrants. The final stages in the process are
proclamation and attachment.

18. Summons, bailable warrants and
non bailable warrants are directed to police
officers. Duty is imposed by the Cr.P.C. upon
police authorities to serve the summons,
execute other coercive measures like bailable
warrants and non-bailable warrants issued by
the courts in a time bound manner.

19. The narrative will benefit from a
brief survey of certain statutory provisions.

20. Section 61 Cr.P.C. vests the power
in the courts to issue summons for
appearance of witnesses:

"Section 61. Form of summons.
Every summons issued by a Court under this
Code shall be in writing, in duplicate, signed
by the presiding officer of such Court or by
such other officer as the High Court may,
from time to time, by rule direct, and shall
bear the seal of the Court."

21. Section 62 Cr.P.C. casts the
responsibility of service of summons upon
the police officers.

"Section
62.
Summons
how
served.

(1). Every summons shall be
served by a police officer, or subject to
such rules as the State Government may
make in this behalf, by an officer of the
Court issuing it or other public servant.

(2). The summons shall, if
practicable, be served personally on the
person
summoned,
by
delivering
or
tendering to him one of the duplicates of
the summons.

(3). Every person on whom a
summons is so served shall, if so required
by the serving officer, sign a receipt
therefor on the back of the other duplicate."

22. Section 70 Cr.P.C. vests the
power of issuance of warrants in the courts.

"Section 70. Form of warrant of
arrest and duration.

(1). Every warrant of arrest issued
by a Court under this Code shall be in
writing, signed by the presiding officer of
such Court and shall bear the seal of the
Court.

(2). Every such warrant shall
remain in force until it is cancelled by the
Court which issued it, or until it is
executed."

23. The warrants are ordinarily
directed to police officer under Sections 72
Cr.P.C. and 74 Cr.P.C. Warrants can also
be forwarded for execution outside the
local jurisdiction of the court issuing it
under Section 78 Cr.P.C. Under section 78
Cr.P.C. warrants are directed to the
Superintendent of Police or Commissioner
of Police within whose local jurisdiction it
is to be executed, or the concerned
Executive Magistrate. Relevant provisions
are extracted hereinunder:

"Section 72. Warrants to whom
directed.
1052 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(1). A warrant of arrest shall
ordinarily be directed to one or more police
officers; but the Court issuing such a
warrant may, if its immediate execution is
necessary
and
no
police
officer
is
immediately available, direct it to any other
person or persons, and such person or
persons shall execute the same.

(2). When a warrant is directed to
more officers or persons than one, it may
be executed by all, or by any one or more
of them."

24. Failure of the police authorities to
serve
summons
or
execute
bailable
warrants or non bailable warrants is looked
askance by the statute and the courts alike.

25. The courts are duly empowered
under the Code to take out penal
proceedings
against
defaulting
police
officials for failing to serve summons or
execute bailable warrants or non-bailable
warrants.

26. Failure to serve summons or
execute warrants by police officers and
absence of official witnesses constitute
offences affecting the administration of
justice.

27. Chapter 26 of the Cr.P.C. contains
detailed provisions as to offences affecting
the administration of justice.

28. Section 173 I.P.C. also provides
for punishment for preventing service of
summons or other proceedings. In this
regard Section 217 I.P.C. also provides for
inflicting punishment of public servant for
disobeying direction of the law with intent
to save person from punishment or property
from forfeiture. Some of the provisions
which become applicable to government
servants for preventing service of summons
or neglecting to appear before the court
include Sections 345 Cr.P.C., 349 Cr.P.C.
and 350 Cr.P.C. The provisions are
extracted in Appendix 1i.

29. There is another aspect to the
matter. Non compliance of orders of a trial
court issuing summons or taking out
coercive measures directly interferes in the
administration of justice and constitutes
contempt of court.

30. However, such course of action
under the statute will lead to multiplicity of
litigation and consume precious judicial
time. Scale of the problem is so vast that
taking
out
criminal
or
contempt
proceedings in every matter against erring
officials would also mire the police and
other State departments in excessive and
avoidable litigation. Legal proceedings of
this nature would drain away scarce
resources of the police force from its core
tasks
of
policing,
investigations
and
discharging statutory duties under the
Cr.P.C.

31. It is noteworthy that government
circulars
as
well
as
General
Rules
(Criminal) also cover the field of service of
summons and responsibility of officials to
comply with the summons and other
coercive measures issued by the courts.

32. Circular No. 51/IV-h-36 dated
10th March, 1977 casts responsibility on
the Superintendent of Police and also the
Inspector General of Police, Uttar Pradesh:

"(b) Normal summons should be
sent through the Superintendent of Police
to the Station Officer concerned within
three days. The Station Officer shall report
compliance directly to the, court concerned
within 15 days of the receipt of the
9 All. Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir Vs. State of U.P.
1053
summons
in
the
office
of
the
Superintendent of Police.

(c) The Inspector General of
Police, Uttar Pradesh has issued separate
directions in this behalf to his subordinate
officers. In case, however, no report is
received from the S.O. concerned within
the prescribed time or report of noncompliance is received with regard to
witness, the court should take up the matter
with
the
Superintendent
of
Police
concerned immediately."

33. Circular No. 65/VIIb-9 dated 14th
June,
1979,
provides
for
securing
appearance of transferred police officers or
officials as witnesses. In this regard the
summons have to be directed to the
Superintendent of Police of the district and
Deputy Inspector General of Police:

"The
summonses
requiring
appearance of transferred police officers or
officials, as witnesses should, instead of
being sent to the Police Headquarters,
Allahabad be sent to the Superintendent of
Police of the district concerned after
ascertaining their address from the Public
Prosecutor. In case it is not possible to
ascertain the addresses of transferred police
officers or officials from the Public
Prosecutor, the summonses of non-gazetted
police officials should be sent to the local
Superintendent of Police and that of
gazetted police officers to the Assistant
Inspector
General
of
Police,
U.P.,
Lucknow, requesting them to arrange for
the service of summonses."

34. Non compliance of the directions
of the court is covered by Circular No.
42/98 Dated: Allahabad: 20/8/1998:

"4. If the police personnel are not
complying with the directions of the court
then appropriate action under the provision
of the contempt of courts Act be initiated
against them."

35. Circular No. 76/Admin. (F); Alld.
Dated: 14.12.2007 issued in pursuance of
various recommendations of the High
Court acknowledges the delay in service of
summons as main cause in disposal of the
criminal cases and sets up summons cells
which is manned by police constables in
every districts:

"Identifying the delay in service
of Summons to be the main cause for delay
in disposal of the Criminal Cases, on the
recommendations of Hon'ble Court a cell
with adequate number of police constables
to be attached to each district court
exclusively, has been constituted to attend
the work of each court as per direction of
the Sessions Judges/CJMs.

I am directed to say that you shall
exercise effective control over such cell
and shall also submit a quarterly statement
to
the
Hon'ble
Court
showing
the
performance for each month on the
enclosed prescribed proforma."

36. The existing and operative
procedures and departmental accountability
system to serve summons and execute
coercive measures ordered by the court are
largely ineffective and have failed to
achieve
their
purpose.
The
police
department will have to revisit extant
organizational procedures, departmental
oversight
and
determination
of
responsibility in respect of service of
summons
and
execution of
coercive
measures issued by the courts Necessary
changes for individual accountability have
to be introduced after examining the
infirmities in the system apart from those
found in this judgement.
1054 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

37. In this wake, the powers of the
courts to draw criminal proceedings or
even contempt proceedings against the
erring police officials for failing to serve
summons or executing coercive processes
have to be supplemented by effective
departmental
procedures
delineating
responsibility and fixing accountability in
the police. An independent and effective
internal accountability system in the police
force for ensuring service of summons, and
execution of coercive processes in a time
bound framework may well be the need of
the
hour.
A
composite
scheme
of
departmental
accountability
to
ensure
timely service of summons and execution
of warrants, coexisting with provisions in
the Cr.P.C. and powers of contempt of
court for penalising acts interfering in the
administration of justice will facilitate
speedy
conclusion
of
trials,
besides
obviating
possible
criminal
litigation
against police officials.

38. On earlier occasions when
confronted with such issues, this Court
issued directions to the SSP/SP of the
concerned district to ensure that both
summons and the coercive measures taken
out by the courts are executed in a time
bound manner. Directions proved effective
and
the
object
of
compelling
the
appearance of the accused or the witnesses
at the trial in a timely manner was
achieved. [Ref: Jitendra Vs. State of
U.P.9]. The operative part of Jitendra
(supra) is reproduced hereunder for ease of
reference:

"Though the process for framing
of rules for ensuring expeditious service of
summons
and
execution of
coercive
processes by the Court is underway, this
Court
would
like
to
make
a
few
observations. In the experience of this
Court only the nomination of a senior
official not less than a rank of S.S.P. to
oversee the service of summons/execution
of coercive processes would prove most
efficacious in such matters. The Court on
past occasions had issued directions upon
the S.S.P. for ensuring that summons are
duly served in time and the coercive
processes by the trial courts are promptly
executed. On failure to do so, the S.S.P.s
were required to submit their personal
affidavits disclosing the causes for such
failure and fixing responsibility for the
same. This procedure proved efficacious as
in most of the cases the Court found that
both the service of summons and execution
of coercive processes were prompt and
which in turn led to a timely conclusion of
the trials.

Secondly,
a
witness
tracker
program containing updates on the latest
appointment and address of the witness will
be most helpful to gain the end to be
achieved."

39. Appointment of nodal officers at
various levels for compelling appearance of
witnesses may be an effective measure to
deal with the crises situation. However, the
system shall be fruitful only if the nodal
officers are heads of the police at the
respective levels. The nodal officers should
be empowered to coordinate with police
forces at various levels be it District, Zone,
State or inter State. It is noteworthy that
various government circulars and statutory
provisions
discussed
earlier
cast
responsibility on the district police chief or
the zonal chiefs as case may be.

40. The statutory obligation imposed
upon the police authorities to compel
appearance of witnesses on orders of the
courts have to be incorporated in the
charter of duties of the nodal officers to
9 All. Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir Vs. State of U.P.
1055
which
they
shall
be
accountable.
Performance of said officials is also liable
to be evaluated on the said yardsticks and
corrected by the department whenever
deviations occur.

41. The magnitude of the problem of
absent witnesses and inadequacy of the
response of the police to enforce summons
and coercive measures converge to expose
a systemic fault line which threatens the
credibility of the justice delivery system.

42. Inability of the police authorities
to serve summons and execute coercive
measures issued by the learned trial courts
in the specified time frame is an endemic
problem and a major bottleneck in the
criminal law process. This deficiency in
functioning of the police results in absence
of
witnesses
in
courts
and
causes
interminable delays in trials and strikes at
the root of public faith in the justice
delivery system. The police authorities
cannot turn a Nelson's eye to departmental
shortcomings and senior officials cannot
evade responsibility.

43. Rights of accused to a speedy trial
under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India
are
being
violated
and
fair
administration of right of bail is being
hampered as a consequence of these
failures of the police department.

44. True it is that judicial power is the
monopoly of courts and judicial orders are
the prerogative of courts. True also that
realization of fundamental rights of citizens
is the obligation of all organs of State and
dispensation of justice to citizens is the
responsibility of all instrumentalities of
governance. The police cannot deny its
statutory
duty
to
compel
prompt
appearance of witnesses by timely service
of summons and execution of warrants on
orders of the courts. The State cannot
abnegate its constitutional obligation to
protect the fundamental rights of prisoners
who suffer prolonged incarceration due to
delayed trials. Neither institution can
escape accountability.

45. The need to address this issue
squarely caused this Court to direct the
State Government to consider framing of
rules
for
an
efficacious
system
of
accountability within the police department
for timely service of summons and
execution of coercive processes issued by
the courts. [Ref: Jitendra (supra)]. Since
the consideration is on foot, the State
Government may also examine these
aspects of the matter. The task has to be
accomplished with deep meticulousness
and greatest promptitude.

46. Failure of the police authorities
and neglect of the State Government to
acknowledge their statutory duties and
constitutional obligations respectively will
lead to miscarriage of justice. Prisoners
spend long years in jail simply because the
police authorities do not ensure appearance
of witnesses on a timely basis in defiance
of orders passed by the trial courts. Failure
of justice becomes more acute because
many
of
the
prisoners
belong
to
marginalized sections of the society and are
incapacitated
by
poverty
and
legal
illiteracy. All stakeholders would do well
remember to caution of this Court given in
Anil Gaur (supra):

"59...Exactions of poverty are
more severe than punishments in law. For
them the glorious dawn of the 75th year of
independence has lost the sheen of
freedom's ideals and the substance of the
republic's promise.
1056 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

60. Injustice is the birthmark of a
slave nation. Justice is the birthright of a
free people and our constitution says they
shall have it."

47. A copy to be served upon the
Director General of Police, Government of
U.P.,
Director
General
(Prosecution),
Home Secretary, Government of U.P.,
Legal Remembrancer/Principal Secretary
(Law), Government of U.P., Lucknow and
Director, JTRI, Lucknow.

Order in Bail Application

48. By means of the second bail
application the applicant has prayed to be
enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.37 of
2014 (S.T. No.260 of 2014) at Police
Station-Oncha,
District-Mainpuri
under
Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC and
Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act.

49. The applicant is on interim bail
granted by this Court on 21.07.2023.

50. The following arguments made by
Shri Bratendra Singh, learned counsel on
behalf of the applicant, which could not be
satisfactorily refuted by Shri Paritosh
Kumar Malviya, learned AGA-I from the
record, entitle the applicant for grant of
bail:

I. The applicant is a law abiding
citizen and had always cooperated with the
investigations
and
joined
the
trial
proceedings.

II. The trial is moving at a snail's
pace and and shows no sign of early
conclusion. The applicant cannot be faulted
for the delay in the trial.

III. The status report sent by the
learned trial court records that delay in the
trial is also being occasioned by the failure
of the police authorities to serve summons
and execute coercive measures issued by
the learned trial court.

IV.
Inordinate
delay
in
concluding trial had has led to virtually an
indefinite imprisonment of the applicant
without there being any credible evidence
to implicate him in the offence and violates
the rights of the applicant to speedy trial.

V. The applicant does not have
any criminal history apart from this case.

VI. The applicant is not a flight
risk. The applicant being a law abiding
citizen has always cooperated with the
investigation and undertakes to join the
trial proceedings. There is no possibility of
his influencing witnesses, tampering with
the evidence or reoffending.

51. In the light of the preceding
discussion
and
without
making
any
observations on the merits of the case, the
bail application is allowed.

52. Let the applicant- Bhanwar Singh
@ Karamvir be released on bail in the
aforesaid case crime number, on the sureties
already furnished while being enlarged on
interim bail. The following conditions be
imposed in the interest of justice:-

(a) The applicant will not tamper
with the evidence or influence any witness
during the trial.

(b) The applicant will appear
before the trial court on the date fixed,
unless personal presence is exempted.

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

345. Procedure in certain cases of
contempt.
9 All. Siddhant @ Aashu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1057

(1) When any such offence as is
described in section 175, section 178, section
179, section 180 or section 228 of the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), is committed in the
view or presence of any Civil, Criminal or
Revenue Court, the Court may cause the
offender to be detained in custody and may,
at any time before the rising of the Court on
the same day, take cognizance of the offence
and, after giving the offender a reasonable
opportunity of showing cause why he should
not be punished under this section, sentence
the offender to fine not exceeding two
hundred rupees, and, in default of payment of
fine, to simple imprisonment for a term
which may extend to one month, unless such
fine be sooner paid.

(2) In every such case the Court shall
record the facts constituting the offence, with
the statement (if any) made by the offender,
as well as the finding and sentence. (3) If the
offence is under section 228 of the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), the record shall
show the nature and stage of the judicial
proceeding in which the Court interrupted or
insulted was sitting, and the nature of the
interruption or insult.

349. Imprisonment or committal of
person refusing to answer or produce
document. If any witness or person called to
produce a document or thing before a
Criminal Court refuses to answer such
questions as are put to him or to produce any
document or thing in his possession or power
which the Court requires him to produce, and
does not, after a reasonable opportunity has
been, given, to him so to do, offer any
reasonable excuse for such refusal, such
Court may, for reasons to be recorded in
writing,
sentence
him
to
simple
imprisonment, or by warrant under the hand
of the Presiding Magistrate or Judge commit
him to the custody of an officer of the Court
for any term not exceeding seven days, unless
in the meantime, such person consents to be
examined and to answer, or to produce the
document or thing and in the event of his
persisting in his refusal, he may be dealt with
according to the provisions of section 345 or
section 346.

350.
Summary
procedure
for
punishment for non- attendance by a
witness in obedience to summons.

(1) If any witness being summoned to
appear before a Criminal Court is legally
bound to appear at a certain place and time in
obedience to the summons and without just
excuse neglects or refuses to attend at that
place or time or departs from the place where
he has to attend before the time at which it is
lawful for him to depart, and the Court before
which the witness is to appear is satisfied that
it is expedient in the interests of justice that
such a witness should be tried summarily, the
Court may take cognizance of the offence
and after giving the offender an opportunity
of showing cause why he should not be
punished under this section, sentence him to
fine not exceeding one hundred rupees.

(2) In every such case the Court shall
follow, as nearly as may be practicable, the
procedure prescribed for summary trials.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 1057
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.09.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 36536 of
2023

Siddhant @ Aashu ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties