Allahabad High Court

AARIFversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 8 September 2026
Bench: AJAY KUMAR II

Holding

The High Court held that, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, it cannot direct a time‑bound disposal of the pending trial.

Summary

The applicant filed an application under Section 529 of the BNSS seeking a High Court direction that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court in Muzaffarnagar expedite the trial of State vs. Bhoora (Case No. 2509/9 of 2018), which involves offences under the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The applicant argued that the trial was unduly delayed and requested a fixed time‑frame for its disposal. The State opposed the prayer, stating no objection provided the lower court was not already overburdened. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents (Shaikh Uzma Feroz Hussain vs State of Maharashtra and High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs State of U.P.), held that time‑bound directions are permissible only in extraordinary circumstances, which the applicant failed to demonstrate. Consequently, the application for a time‑bound directive was refused, but the Court permitted the applicant to move a separate application before the trial court for expeditious disposal, with a six‑week deadline for the trial court’s decision. The judgment underscores the principle that exceptional circumstances are a prerequisite for judicial imposition of fixed disposal schedules.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can issue a direction under Section 529 BNSS for time‑bound disposal of a pending criminal trial.
Whether the applicant has shown any exceptional circumstance justifying such a direction.

Legislation cited

Bureau of Narcotic... (BNSS) — s. 529
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 — s. 11, 3
U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 — s. 3, 5, 8

Subjects

time‑bound disposal
Section 529 BNSS
exceptional circumstances
court pendency
cow slaughter offence
animal cruelty
High Court direction
criminal trial

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 529 BNSS No. - 4359 of 2026

Aarif
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shams Uz Zaman
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard Mr. Shams Uz Zaman, learned counsel for the applicant, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 529 of BNSS has been filed by the
applicant with a prayer to direct the Court of Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Court No. 2, Muzaffarnagar to expedite and conclude the trial of
Case No. 2509/9 of 2018 (State vs. Bhoora and others), arising out of Case
Crime No. 481 of 2018, under Section 3/5/8 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow
Slaughter Act, 1955 and Section 3/11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Act, 1960, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Muzaffarnagar, preferably
within a fixed and stipulated time-time framed by this Court.

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 proceedings of the
aforesaid case is still pending and has not been decided till date. Therefore,
he requested that a direction to the learned trial Court be issued to decide the
aforesaid 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
extraordinary.
NA529 No. 4359 of 2026
2

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 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 pendecny 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. Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to make out any exceptional
circumstance 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 learned 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, the applicant is given a liberty to move an
appropriate application before trial Court concerned for bringing out all such
facts, 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 six weeks from the date of filing of such
application. If, trial Court comes to the conclusion that the case for
expeditious disposal is made out, then in that eventuality, it shall decide the
same as expeditiously as possible within a reasonable period.

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. With the aforesaid observations/direction, the present application is
disposed of.

September 9, 2026
Monika
(Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
MONIKA KESARWANI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…