PAPPUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 529 BNSS No. - 3976 of 2026

Pappu
                                                             .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Kunwar Bikram Suryabansh, Vinay
                                Kumar Singh Chandel
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 Sessions Trial No. 810
of 2008 (State vs. Jagga @ Jagdish) arising out of Case Crime No. 263-A
of 1996, under Sections 302, 394 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Ghaziabad
pending before Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 3,
Ghaziabad, 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 trial is of the year
2008, which is still pending 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.
                                                               NA529 No. 3976 of 2026
                                    2

State of U.P. and others, (2024) 6 SCC 267 has observed in paragraph -
42, 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 certified copy of order-sheet reveals that the applicant is
informant of aforesaid case crime number. Recording of whose deposition
as PW-4 has already been concluded on 14.7.2026. Only the certified
copy of order-sheet from 10.10.2025 to 14.7.2026 have been annexed.
The bailable warrant against applicant was issued on 10.10.2025, which
continued for several dates. On 9.1.2026, NBW was issued against him,
which was cancelled by Court concerned on 14.1.2026. Thereafter,
adjournment applications were moved by applicant/ informant on
2.2.2026, 20.2.2026, 10.3.2026, 30.3.2026, 15.4.2026, 4.5.2026,
11.5.2026, 21.5.2026 and his examination in chief was recorded on
29.5.2026. Cross- examination of applicant/ informant was deferred on
29.5.2026. However, on 17.6.2026 again an adjournment application was
moved by him and his part cross -examination was recorded on 3.7.2026
and thereafter his cross-examination was concluded on 14.7.2026. Court
concerned also directed Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad and SSP,
Aligarh to provide him security for recording his evidence vide it's order
dated 4.7.2026. Thus, delay in recording statement of applicant/ informant
is not attributable to Court concerned and the delay has occasioned only
because of aforementioned reasons, which have been duly recorded in the
order-sheet. The Court concerned is trying it's level best to conclude the
pending trial.
9. 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.
                                                                                             NA529 No. 3976 of 2026
                                                                  3

                                    10. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed.


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




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