# Ravi Kumar Agarwal & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2014) 2 ILRA 723
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-06-18
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No. 21577 of 2014
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravi-kumar-agarwal-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-42964
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Cr.P.C.-Section
482-Applicant
seeking
direction for expeditious disposal of bail
application-shocking state of affairs on
part of Court below-inspite of direction
of full Bench as well as Hon'ble Supreme
Court-without assigning any reasonadjournment granted either on Advocate
strike or at request of prosecutionpresiding judge-failed to discharge its
duty-direction issued to decide bail
application on merit on next date fixedapplication allowed with cost of Rs.
10,000/-.

Held: Para-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.
724 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Case Law discussed:
[2004(57) ALR 290]; [2009(4)SCC 437];
Application u/s Cr.P.C. No. 19926 of 2013.

## Text

2 All] Ravi Kumar Agarwal & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
723
should be directed to be decided on the
same day. In my view, it is nothing but a
gross abuse of process of law and
frivolous litigation, therefore, should
attract exemplary cost.

24. Learned A.G.A. informs this
Court that everyday, dozens of such
applications with similar request are being
filed consuming huge time of this Court
in disposal of such applications, which
orders in fact are nothing but create an
undue pressure upon subordinate judiciary
also so as to protect itself from a situation
of likely disobedience of this Court's
orders though, as a matter of fact, neither
such direction in view of Larger Bench
judgment is permissible nor there is any
occasion for such issuance.

25. This Court cannot make any
comment on such statement of learned
AGA but only takes notice of the fact that
a large number of cases with similar
request
are
being
filed
everyday
consuming enough time of this Court in
disposal of such applications. This is high
time now that legal aspect of the matter
should be reiterated again with a hope that
such applications in future would be
discouraged to be filed unless and until a
case on the basis of pleadings, facts and
material is made out.

26. Looking to the discussion, made
above, the application has to be dismissed
with cost.

27. The application is accordingly
dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/-, which
shall be paid by applicants in Government
Treasury within a month from today, failing
which, it would be open to the State to
realize the same as arrears of land revenue.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.06.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 21577 of 2014
(U/s 482 Cr.P.C.)

Ravi Kumar Agarwal & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr.. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri K.K. Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Cr.P.C.-Section
482-Applicant
seeking
direction for expeditious disposal of bail
application-shocking state of affairs on
part of Court below-inspite of direction
of full Bench as well as Hon'ble Supreme
Court-without assigning any reasonadjournment granted either on Advocate
strike or at request of prosecutionpresiding judge-failed to discharge its
duty-direction issued to decide bail
application on merit on next date fixedapplication allowed with cost of Rs.
10,000/-.

Held: Para-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.
724 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Case Law discussed:
[2004(57) ALR 290]; [2009(4)SCC 437];
Application u/s Cr.P.C. No. 19926 of 2013.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri K.K. Dwivedi, learned
counsel for applicants, learned Standing
Counsel for State and perused the record.

2. It is really surprising that Bail
Application No. 1122 of 2014 - Ravi
Kumar Agarwal and Another Vs. State of
U.P., filed on behalf of applicants is not
being attended and disposed of by I/C
District and Sessions Judge, Agra, as is
evident from orders dated 31.5.2014 and
05.06.2014, whereby the same has been
adjourned only on the ground that
Advocates are on strike and request of
prosecution for adjournment is accepted
without
assigning
any
reason.
On
12.6.2014 the application has been
adjourned only on the ground of strike of
Advocates.

3. This approach on the part of
Sessions Judge concerned is apparently
illegal, inasmuch as in my view, he has
failed to discharge his duties in the
manner as laid down by a Seven Judges'
decision of this Court in Amaravati and
another Vs. State of U.P. [2004 (57) ALR
290] and approved in Lal Kamlendra
Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. [2009 (4)
SCC 437].

4. Both the above authorities have
also dealt with the tendency of Courts in
not passing orders on bail applications
expeditiously, by applying mind, and
instead simply deferring proceedings. It
has been considered by this Court also in
Trilok Chand Vs. State of U.P. and Anr.
(Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 19926
of 2013, decided on 19.06.2013), and
deprecating above tendency, in paragraph
nos. 22 and 23, this Court has said :-

"22. Lastly it is contended that at
least the courts below be directed to
consider the bail application of accused
applicant on the same day when it is
presented. It is pointed out that in many of
the
cases
the
concerned
courts/Magistrates either grant interim
bail or sent accused in jail by deferring
any order on the bail application due to
paucity of time and that is how the
fundamental right of life and liberty of
accused is jeopardised for no fault on his
part.

23. What is said, if correct, is
admittedly something serious and puts a
lot on the system of administration of
justice. If a person who otherwise does
not deserve bail for one or the other
reasons is allowed interim bail, only for
one or the other reasons is allowed
interim bail, only for the reason that
concerned Magistrate/Court finds no time
to apply mind on his application, it would
not only be travesty of justice but would
be highly dangerous for the society at
large. Similarly, if a person is sent to jail,
curtailing his liberty, only for the reason
that concerned Magistrate/court could not
find time to apply mind on his bail
application, again this would be a case of
grave injustice, besides violation of
fundamental rights of a citizen. Both the
situations cannot be appreciated. In the
circumstances, I would like to hold that if
a bail application is moved in time, with
due notice to other side, if so required in
law, the Magistrate/court concerned must
consider
the
relevant
facts
and
circumstances before passing any order
either way and in case the number of
applications are such so as not to make it
2 All] Ravi Kumar Agarwal & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
725
possible to be attended within the court
timing, the District Judge concerned shall
look into and distribute the work in such
manner so that applications are attended
by competent courts without any undue
delay and no person is sent to jail or
released, by way of interim bail, without
application
of
mind
by
concerned
court/Magistrate. If necessary the Court
may attend such applications irrespective
of the fact that court timing is over.
Upholding
Constitutional
rights and
people's freedom vis-a-vis the safety,
protection and interest of society is of
prime importance and it cannot be
compromised in the name of court timings
or something for which the parties are not
responsible
and
accountable.
If
necessary, on this aspect the matter may
also be examined on administrative side
by this Court after having relevant
information with detail facts and datas
from concerned district judgeship(s)."

5. If bail application has been filed
on behalf of accused through an Advocate
and Counsel does not appear on the
ground that there is call of strike or on
any other pretext, the Court concerned
must allow the accused, in case he is
present, to address the Court on bail
application. It is only if the accused
makes a statement that application should
be deferred to some other date till his
counsel is available, and he is ready to
continue in jail, the Court may defer
hearing on bail application. Otherwise,
bail application should be heard and ought
not be deferred only on the ground that
Advocates
are
on
strike
or
not
present/ready to address the Court on bail
application. If the accused(s)' counsel is
present, but counsel appearing for the
prosecution/complainant is not present, or
seeks adjournment, that by itself would
not confer a ground to the Court
concerned to defer hearing of bail
application, for the reason that a person
cannot be allowed to be detained or
continue to languish in jail merely for the
reason that other side is not ready to
address the Court on bail application, on
merits. Reason(s) must have to be
assigned by the Court concerned and there
must be some special and genuine reason
for such deferment, which are beyond the
control of learned counsel appearing for
the prosecution or the complainant, as the
case may be.

6. In several matters, it has come to
the notice of this Court, that mostly, bail
applications are adjourned on the request
of prosecution, stating that case diary has
not
been
received
or
investigating
officer/pairokar
from
the
concerned
Police Station has not come with record
or likewise similar other excuses. These
excuses on the part of prosecution are
needed to be dealt with seriously and
sternly. As a matter of right, Investigating
Officer or Prosecution cannot delay
disposal of bail application or trial, as the
case may be, by simply not cooperating
with the Court. It is their prime duty to
attend the court at first call and produce
the record called for, and assist the Court
by providing required information and
record to the prosecuting agency/counsel.
Any defiance, negligence or carelessness
in this respect, not only requires serious
action on the part of Court concerned but
such attitude on the part of concerned
official(s) also amounts to obstruction in
administration of justice for which the
Court concerned can also make reference
to this Court for initiating contempt
proceeding
against
such
Official/Government Official(s), and for
punishing him/them suitably, for creating
726 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
obstruction in administration of justice
under the provisions of Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Act, 1971') District level officers
of prosecution as also Secretary level
officers in the State Government should
also be apprised of such facts so as to
enable them to take appropriate action on
departmental side. In case of inaction on
their part also, their tacit approval for
defiance of Courts' order or obstruction in
the administration of justice would be
inferred, justifying appropriate action
under the Act, 1971, against them also.

7. It is pertinent to notice here that it
is a common feature of present day that
considerable number of cases are pending
in lower Courts owing to either non
appearance of prosecution witnesses, or,
production of record, specially concerned
with Government agencies etc. or absence
of
Investigating
Officer,
or
non
production/non-appearance
of
formal
witnesses by prosecution etc. The trial
also suffers for similar reason.

8. Maintenance of Court's authority
rests heavily upon Court itself. A Court of
law has authority to get its order(s)
executed or complied. It is for the Court
to ensure that law and its rule is respected
without exception. The circumstances
under which Court chooses to allow
adjournment or simply proceeds with the
case to the detriment of the side that has
failed to produce witnesses, have to be
scrutinized by the Court before granting
adjournment or proceeding with the case.
The Court should strictly apply its
authority in each and every case so as to
have
disposal
of
the
matter
with
reasonable expeditiousness, whether bail
applications or the trial itself. Duty and
responsibility
to
ensure
that
State
Agencies/prosecution agencies, promptly
and diligently assist the Court and comply
with orders thereof. Thus, obligation
ultimately rests with the State itself. The
State must be held responsible for lapses,
if any, in this regard. It must ensure that
breaches/lapses, if any, in observing
obligation as above, are prevented in
future. The Court must take necessary
steps to assert its authority with vigour
and determination so as not to allow
adornments
on
shallow
and
bogus
grounds. Sometimes on account of
artificial, flimsy and wholly unreasonable
excuses, the matters are adjourned and
sometimes due to frivolous litigation a
considerable time of Court is wasted
which otherwise could have been utilised
for some substantial issue. It prevents
effective discharge of duty of Courts
towards dispensation of justice to the
needy.

9. Time has come when this Court
has
to
evolve
a
method
so
that
dispensation of justice expeditiously and
within reasonable time becomes a reality.
Today, a person facing a litigation
whether civil or criminal, treats it as
nightmare, not for any other reason but
for the fear of prolonged litigious torture
i.e. for extraordinary and indefinite period
which is bound to affect, not only his
pocket, but resources and life in general.
The way in which the judicial system in
India is seen by people can be visualised
from a well known idiom "mukadme ke
liye jeb me sone ki dali or pair me lohe ka
joota hona chahiye." (for pursuing a
litigation in court one should have a piece
of gold in his pocket and shoes made of
iron in feet). Literal meaning of the above
idiom in its true spirit is that the money
one would be required to face a litigation
is so exorbitant that it may render him
2 All] Ravi Kumar Agarwal & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
727
virtually penniless at the end and
simultaneously, he will have to visit the
Court
for
innumerable
times.
This
assumption in general public/society has
to be removed, not by simply giving
lectures on various platforms or in
meetings and eatings but by effective and
actual work in the field. Time has come
when Court should show a determination
of speedy disposal of cases so as to
generate confidence in litigants that a date
if has been given in his case, it will cause
a result on that date and not a simple
adjournment
i.e.
another
date.
The
tendency of date after date has to be
broken.

10. In the present case, I find a
serious breach on the part of I/C Sessions
Judge, in simply deferring consideration
of bail application of applicant, repeatedly
on three dates, without there being any
fault on the part of accused applicants and
that is how they have continued in jail.
Continuing a person in jail by keeping his
bail application pending without any just
and lawful reason and without any
application of mind on the part of the
Court, in my view, prima facie infringes
his right of freedom of personal liberty. It
also
violates
constitutional
and
fundamental right of the applicants under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The applicants who are confined in jail
due
to
deferment
of
their
bail
applications, suffer violation of their
fundamental rights, thereon, for which the
attitude of Court below deserves serious
deprecation.

11. Learned A.G.A. At this stage
submitted that due to strike of lawyers
disposal of bail applications have become
very difficult. If an accused is in jail,
every time he is not brought to the Court.
Many a times, the accused remains in jail,
therefore, in absence of his counsel,
courts below find it difficult as to how
bail applications should be heard and
decided and that is a general practical
dilemma
before
Courts
below.
He
required that this Court may make some
clarification on this aspect for the benefit
and guidance of courts below to deal with
such situation and like others.

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.If the accused is present in Court,
the Court shall permit him/her to address
728 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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. 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.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.06.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MANOJ MISRA, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 21608 of 2014
(U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.)

Nishant Tiwari @ Sonu & Ors. .Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Ram Surat Patel

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Cr.P.C.-Section
482-
Quashing
of
criminal
proceeding-offence
under
section 498-A, 323, 506 IPC-on ground
process issued under Section 202(i)-
without-enquiry-vitiated-held-when the
Magistrate after recording statement
under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C-being
satisfied regarding existence of prima
facie case against applicants amended
provisions of 202 (i)Cr.P.C.-stand fully