SATYA PRAKASHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 529 BNSS No. - 3938 of 2026

Satya Prakash
                                                               .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                                  .....Opposite
                                                                        Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                      :   Anil Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                 :   G.A.

Court No. - 78
                    HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and
perused material on record.
2. The present application has been filed by the applicant with prayer to
direct the learned trial court to decide/expedite the Case No. 83 of 2016
(State vs. Daulat Ram and others) under Sections 420, 120-B IPC, P.S.
Devraniya, District Bareilly arising out of Case Crime No. 261 of 2014
pending before Judicial Magistrate, Baheri, District Bareilly, within
stipulated period.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the proceedings before
the court concerned be directed to be concluded in a time bound manner.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in this case, trial is
pending since 2016 and has not been decided till now. Therefore, he
requested that a direction to learned trial Court be issued to decide the
aforesaid application/case within a stipulated period of time.
4. Learned A.G.A. has no objection in this regard if the Court below is not
already overloaded with huge pendency of such cases.
5. Hon’ble Apex Court in Shaikh Uzma Feroz Hussain vs. State of
Maharashtra in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 587 of 2023 has observed
that every High Court and every Court in the country has a huge
pendency, the constitutional Court should avoid temptation of fixing a
time bound schedule for disposal of any case before any Court unless the
situation is extra ordinary.
6. Hon’ble Apex Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs.
State of U.P. and others, (2024) 6 SCC 267 has observed in paragraph 4
                                                               NA529 No. 3938 of 2026
                                    2

2, which is reproduced as under:-
“Constitutional Courts should not normally fix a time-bound schedule for disposal of
cases pending in any Court. The pattern of pendency of various categories of cases
pending in every Court, including High Courts, is different. The situation at the
grassroots level is better known to the judges of the concerned Courts. Therefore,
the issue of giving out-of- turn priority to certain cases should be best left to the
concerned Courts. The orders fixing the outer limit for the disposal of cases should be
passed only in exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations.”
7. Thus, law as far as issuance of a direction for time bound/expeditious
disposal has already been well settled that only when an exceptional
circumstance is made out, a direction for time-bound/ expeditious
disposal of such a case can be issued, not otherwise.
8. A perusal of record reveals that the applicant is a joint account holder
with his wife and an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was fraudulently
withdrawn from his joint account in collusion with the then Bank
Manager Pankaj Kumar, who has been arrayed as an accused in Case
Crime No. 180 of 2014. The aforesaid FIR was got registered by the then
Bank Manager Manoj Kumar against 10 named accused including the
previous bank manager Pankaj Kumar. A perusal of ordersheet dated
22.01.2016 reveals that charge-sheet against Daulat and Rakesh after
completion of investigation in Case Crime No. 180 of 2014 has already
been filed. Upon which cognizance has already been taken and Case No.
83 of 2016 is pending before trial Court. None of the chargesheeted
accused has yet appeared before trial Court. Learned counsel for the
applicant has failed to make out any exceptional circumstances to issue
direction for time-bound/expeditious disposal of case, at this stage.
Accordingly, relief sought by way of present application is hereby
refused.
9. Considering the nature of prayer made by counsel for the applicant, the
interest of justice would be served, in the event, the applicant applies
before the Court concerned for expeditious disposal of the above
mentioned case. Therefore, applicant is given a liberty to move an
appropriate application before trial Court concerned for bringing out all
such fact, which are necessary for expeditious disposal of his case within
two weeks from today, and in case such an application is moved, the trial
Court shall decide the same within four weeks from the date of filing of
such application. If trial Court comes to conclusion that the case either for
expeditious disposal and/or expeditious execution of NBW warrant issued
                                                                                           NA529 No. 3938 of 2026
                                                                   3

                                    against accused is made out, then it shall make all endevour either to
                                    dispose of pending case expeditiously or by ensuring execution of NBW
                                    warrants issued against chargesheeted accused. In case execution of NBW
                                    could not be secured then trial Court shall take all such necessary steps to
                                    secure presence of chargesheeted accused including issuance of process
                                    under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. in accordance with law. It is the duty of a
                                    Court to ensure execution of process issued by it. It is the bounden duty of
                                    every police officers promptly to obey and execute all orders and warrants
                                    lawfully issued to him by virtue of Section 23 of the Police Act, 1861. If
                                    such police officer violates his duty or neglect any lawful order passed by
                                    such Court, then he become guilty under Section 29 of the Police Act.
                                    Therefore, Courts are not powerless to ensure compliance of it's order and
                                    /or execution of lawful process issued by it.
                                    10. It is also provided that in the event there is any legal impediment
                                    before the court concerned in disposal of the case, then the court
                                    concerned shall pass an appropriate order disclosing the legal impediment
                                    as to why the proceedings of the above mentioned case cannot be
                                    proceeded with.
                                    11. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of with aforesaid
                                    direction.


                                                                                       (Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.)
                                    September 8, 2026
                                    Dhirendra/




Digitally signed by :-
DHIRENDRA KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad