# Ravindra v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 12 ILRA 657
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-11-11
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 25765 of 2022
- **Bench:** Nalin Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravindra-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47965
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Law
-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 147, 148, 149,
452, 307, 302, & 506-In the instant case
charges were framed against the accused
persons on 23.12.2011 and since then the
matter is being fixed for prosecution
evidence-Session trial is more than 10
years old and the prosecution evidence is
still not completed despite efforts of the
Presiding Officer-However court cannot
shut its eyes from so many obstacles into
the proceedings of any trial-It is the duty
of
the
court
to
see
whether
the
prolongation was on account of any
delaying tactics adopted by the accused
and
other
relevant
aspects
which
contributed to the delay-Therefore, this
Court strictly directs the trial court to
make all possible endeavor to conclude
the trial of the case within six months.
(Para 1 to 9)

The application is disposed of. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
St. thru C.B.I Vs Dr. Narayan Woman Nerukar
(2002) AIR SC 2977

## Text

12 All. Ravindra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
657
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 657
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 25765 of 2022

Ravindra ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri C.D. Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

A.
Criminal
Law
-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 147, 148, 149,
452, 307, 302, & 506-In the instant case
charges were framed against the accused
persons on 23.12.2011 and since then the
matter is being fixed for prosecution
evidence-Session trial is more than 10
years old and the prosecution evidence is
still not completed despite efforts of the
Presiding Officer-However court cannot
shut its eyes from so many obstacles into
the proceedings of any trial-It is the duty
of
the
court
to
see
whether
the
prolongation was on account of any
delaying tactics adopted by the accused
and
other
relevant
aspects
which
contributed to the delay-Therefore, this
Court strictly directs the trial court to
make all possible endeavor to conclude
the trial of the case within six months.
(Para 1 to 9)

The application is disposed of. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
St. thru C.B.I Vs Dr. Narayan Woman Nerukar
(2002) AIR SC 2977
(Delivered by Hon'ble Nalin Kumar
Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking a suitable
direction to the learned Additional District
Judge-1, District- Muzaffar Nagar to decide
the Sessions Trial No. 924 of 2011 arising
out of Case Crime No. 20 of 2011 under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 302, 506
I.P.C.,
P.S.-
Kakrauli,
District-
Muzaffarnagar as expeditiously as possible
within stipulated time.

3. The prosecution case as culled
out from the FIR is that on 3.2.2011 at
about 3.00 pm an altercation took place
between the brother of complainant
Shokendra
and
his
villagers
Anuj,
Rajendra
and
his
family
members.
Thereafter at about 6.00 pm., the accused
persons namely Rajendra, Ramchandra,
Bhopal, Anuj, Rajeev and Amit with
intention to kill, attacked with firearms
on the brothers of the applicant namely
Shokendra and Subhash as well as his
nephews namely Sachin and Jagpal, in
which the brother of the applicant
Shokendra died on the way of hospital,
while others sustained grievous injuries.
With regard to the aforesaid incident, the
applicant immediately on the same day at
about 22.50 hours lodged an FIR against
the aforesaid accused persons. The police
after investigation submitted the charge
sheet against the aforesaid six accused.
The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
District Muzaffarnagar vide his order
dated 20.04.2011 took cognizance on the
above
mentioned
charge
sheet
and
summoned
the
accused
persons
registering case no. 2224/9 of 2011.
658 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Thereafter, the matter was committed for
trial to the court of sessions on 26.9.2011
and registered as Sessions Trial No. 924
of 2011 in the court of learned Sessions
Judge, District- Muzaffarnagar, which is
presently pending in the Court of learned
Additional
District
Judge-I,
District
Muzaffarnagar. In the above mentioned
trial, charges were framed against the
accused persons on 23.12.2011 and since
then the matter is being fixed for
prosecution evidence.

4. By way of the present petition,
applicant prays for expeditious disposal
of the aforesaid case.

5. From perusal of the record and
explanation sent by the Court concerned,
it appears that the Presiding Officer is
trying to conclude the sessions trial
expeditiously but for some reasons or the
other it is still pending.

6. As a matter of fact, the Sessions
Trial is more than 10 years old and the
prosecution
evidence
is
still
not
completed despite efforts of the Presiding
Officer/ Court concerned. However, the
Court should very well understand the
pathetic condition of the poor informant
also, who remains a mere spectator of
such judicial proceedings and nothing
remains in his hands, Indubitably, speedy
trial is a fundamental right not only of an
accused but also a valuable right of the
victim/ informant of a case. If criminal
proceedings
pending
in
a
court
astounding on with tardy pace which
causes unreasonable delay and results in
grave prejudice to the victim, the Court
must realize its role as the protector of
the
right
of
the
litigant.
While
considering the question of delay, it was
held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State
through
C.B.I.
Vs.
Dr.
Narayan
Waman Nerukar, AIR 2002 SC 2977,
that "Court has a duty to see whether the
prolongation was on account of any
delaying tactics adopted by the accused
and
other
relevant
aspects
which
contributed to the delay. Number of
witnesses
examined,
volume
of
documents likely to be exhibited, nature
and complexity of the offence which is
under investigation or adjudication are
some of the relevant factors."

7. At the same time this Court
cannot shut its eyes from the fact that so
many compelling circumstances occur
during the proceedings of any trial
causing hindrances therein and play a role
of obstacles into the proceedings of any
trial viz. strike of lawyers, adjournment
by parties, loss of record, leave of the
staff,
power
cut
or
any
other
infrastructural
or
urgent
problem.
Therefore, this Court strictly directs the
trial court to make all possible endeavor
to conclude the trial of the case within six
months from the date of receiving of the
certified copy of order of this Court and
also keeping in view the mandatory
provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C.

8. It is also made clear that the
Court / Presiding Officer is not the only
stake holder in the trial and disposal of a
criminal case, hence, besides the P.O.
concerned, all the stake holders i.e. police
and execution authorities, advocates,
parties to the case, staff are also made
bound by this order and it will be their
responsibility also to assist the Court in
every manner for the expeditious disposal
of this case.

9. With the above observations, the
application stands disposed of.
12 All. Ganesh Vs. State of U.P.
659
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 659
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

Criminal Misc. IInd Bail Application No. 3162 of
2021

Ganesh ...Applicant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ardhendu Shekhar Sharma, Sri Ram
Babu Sharma, Sri Sanjay Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - IInd Bail - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A, 302, 326,
323, 504, 506 , Section 299 - Culpable
Homicide , Section 300 - 'murder' , Section
304 - 'culpable homicide not amounting to
murder'
-
Dying
declaration
-

distinction between Section 302 and
Section 304 - "culpable homicide" is
genus and "murder" its specie - All
"murder" is "culpable homicide" but not
vice-versa .(Para - 11)

Applicant (husband) Illicit relationship with wife
of his brother - deceased (wife) could not
prepare food due to non availability of vegetable
- her husband lost his temper and started
beating and poured kerosene oil upon her and
burned - cause of death - septic shock .(Para -
4)

HELD:-No
premeditation
for
applicant
to
commit such offence as alleged against him -
deceased admitted in hospital - remained under
treatment in hospital for 8 days - died after 8
days - septicemia - main cause of death of the
deceased - fit case for grant of bail.(Para -
12,13)
Bail application allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. St. of A.P. Vs Rayavarapu Punnayya & Anr. ,
(1976) 4 SCC 382

2. Maniben Vs St. of Guj. , (2009) 8 SCC 796

3. Chirra Shivraj Vs St. of A.P. , (2010) 14 SCC
444

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar
Yadav, J.)

1. This is a second bail application on
behalf of the applicant. The first bail
application was rejected by a co-ordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated
30.01.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.8363 of 2014.

2. Heard Mr. Ram Babu Sharma ,
learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. R.P.
Mishra, learned Additional Government
Advocate for the State.

3. By means of this application, the
applicant is seeking enlargement on bail
during the trial in Case Crime No.255 of
2013 (S.T. No.584 of 2013), under Sections
498-A, 302, 326, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police
Station Jhangha, District Gorakhpur.

4. In short, the facts in brief are that
the impugned FIR has been lodged by the
informant/complainant, who is the father of
the deceased, alleging that he solemnized
marriage of her daughter, namely, Sunita
with
the
applicant
Ganesh
s/o
Harishchandra, resident of Kona, Police
Station Jhangha, District Gorakhpur and in
the said marriage, sufficient dowry was
given but her son-in-law (applicant) and his
family members were not happy with the
dowry given in the said marriage. It is