LATEEF Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. I. Jafri, J. This application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. filed on behalf of the applicant, impugns the charge-sheet No. 1 of 1990. dated 1-4-90 having been filed by the Police against the applicant and others in Criminal Case No. 110 of 1990 under Section 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307 I. P. C. The aforesaid case was registered against the applicant in Cri. case No. 11c of 1989 at Police Station Sikandra, District Kanpur Dehat at 5. 15 p m. OP 12-11-1989.

(2.) BEFORE embarking on the merit and demerit of the case, it would be useful to give a brief account of the events leading to the registration of the instant case. It is alleged that the applicant alongwith 12 of his companions raided the booth set up at Sarvate Intermediate College, Sikandra and tried to capture it at about 4 p. m. on 22-11-1989 at a time when the polling at the booth was in progress. On being challenged by the Police party headed by the Section Officer of Police Station Sikandra, the accused persons resorted to indiscriminate firing by means of the fire-arms which they possessed, with the result the station officer of Police Station Sikandra sustained gun-shot injuries and he succumbed to his injuries on the spot. The Police party also retaliated by firing at the accused persons and in this shoot out, one Rais Ahmad sustained injuries.

(3.) AN alternative prayer has also been made by the learned counsel for the applicant In the light of this prayer, the learned counsel submitted that the applicant has not been attributed having played any first fiddle or assigned any specific role, that co-accused Azad, Sharif, Subodh Kumir and Naresh Katiyar have already been admitted to bail by the Sessions Judge Kanpur Dahat. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that accused Jan Alam and Mohammad had approached this court by filing an application under Section 482, Cr P. C which this Court was pleased to dispose of vide order dated 20-2-90 with a direction to the court below to dispose of the bail applica tion of the accused on the date of their surender itself. 6 In the above conspectus, I may observe that law raises a presumption about the innocence of the accused till the charge framed against him are successfully brought home to the accused. Liberty of a parson, whither charged with a criminal offence is a statutory right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and if a court of law sees such rights being infringed with impunity by reckless and arbitrary acts of the State, it cannot be expected to put on blinkers and adopt an ostrich policy. If an accused cannot claim the bail as a right, it can claim its expeditious hearing and disposal by the courts. No doubt, the courts are faced with casa-load-crisis and have their own constraints in a case being heard and decided expeditiously. These constraints are further aggravated by the fact that the courts have to depend upon the machinery provided by the; State. Of all the constraints, sterling is the want of instructions at the end of State counsel which is the usual feature in the courts of law. la this view of the mater the right of the accused to claim expeditious disposal of his case is pitched against the interest of the State to contest the case against the accused as of right. It is worthwhile to observe that shock, pain and anguish of Judges in a number of pronouncements have failed to make any visible impact on the police hierarchy or the prosecuting agency to activate them. They have develop ed a recessive tendency taking the commands of the courts lazily and casually. They have their own predilection for other works than for the proceedings in the courts. The courts are not supposed to wait for the convenience of the State machinery prosecuting a case against the accused. In case the prosecuting agency fails to comply with the directions of the court, the courts are at liberty to proceed with the case against the State Agency. Time has come when the courts can no longer brook the statutory rights of the accused being infringed or trampled upon by the arbitrary or indifferent action of the State machinery. I may emphasise that the fealty of the courts has to be to the Constitution of the country and the provisions of law and to upbear the cause of justice and certainly not to the pleasure or whims of the State machinery. 7. I am also constrained to observe that when an accused person surrenders before a court of law, a duty is cast on the court to dispose of the application of the accused person the same day. If the court finds it difficult to dispose of the bail application of the applicant on the same day for want of instructions or for other reasons, it Should release the applicant on his furnishing personal bonds till such time, the court is able to hear and dispose of the application of the accused applicant. At the risk of being verbose I may mention that in such cases, the person who is charged with some offence, harbours no intention to escape or to evade the process of law and it is with full trust in the dignity of the courts and the majesty of law that he surrenders before the court for protection. In this view of the matter, the courts are expected to acquit themselves in a manner as to foster the confidence of the people in the efficacy of the courts and majesty of law. 8. I have been constrained to make the above observations to respects by the Police hierarchy to the process of the courts and to make the courts of law alive to the rights of the accused, to the duties cast on them in law and above all to the respects due to be shown for the human dignity. The time has come when the accused need not wait for their cases to be decided after a long tarry. 9. Reverting to the facts of the instant case, I may observe that the applicant has a right to claim expeditious disposal of his bail application by the court below on the day of his surrender and in this view of the matter and the court should dispose of the bail application of the accused the same day if he surrenders before the court below between 10-30 to II a. m. and moves an application for grant of bail. I may mention that if the accused prays for the application to be decided on the same day on which he surrenders before the court, it is not within the domain of impossibility for the court to do. Rather, such actions if adopted by the court would be one countenanced by law. If the court has some practical difficulty in the disposal of the application for bail the same day, it shall release the applicant on his furnishing personal bond till such time the court is able to hear and dispose of finally the bail application of the applicant. However, it is specified that the release of the accused applicant on personal bond shall not entitle him to claim bail as of right. It is also specified that the above line of course shall not be available to the courts for being adopted in case the accused is arrested and produced before the court by the Police but on application by the accused applicant, the courts shall be under a duty to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. 10. The C. J. M/sessions Judge/special Judge Kanpur Dehat is directed to dispose of the bail application of the applicant the same day provided the applicant makes it a point to surrender before the court between 10-30 11 a. m. on the day of his surrender. If for want of instructions, the court feels difficulty to hear and finally dispose of the application of the applicant, it shall release the applicant on his furnishing personal bond till such time the courts is able to take up the application for hearing and finally disposes it of. 11. Subject to the above observations this application is finally disposed of. 12. Let a copy of this order shall be supplied to the learned counsel for the applicant on payment of usual charges within two days from today. Decided accordingly. .