Allahabad High Court | Concern Over Police Failure To Serve Summons And Enforce Witness Attendance | Trial To Be Expedited Under Section 309 Cr.P.C.
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Allahabad Single Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot held that the applicant did not merit release on bail at the present stage and dismissed the bail application. The Court directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings, preferably concluding the trial within one year from the receipt of the certified copy of the order. Directions were also issued to ensure cooperation of witnesses, counsels, and police authorities for timely conduct of the trial.
The matter concerned the second bail application filed by the applicant seeking release in relation to Case Crime No. 305 of 2022, registered at Police Station Charthawal, District Muzaffarnagar. The offences invoked were under Sections 363, 366, 376, 384 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act. The applicant had been in custody since 18 September 2022.
The first bail application had earlier been dismissed on 25 July 2023. It was noted by the Court that the earlier dismissal was not on merits, hence the second bail plea was taken up for consideration on its merits.
The prosecution case, as recorded in the order, identified the applicant as the principal offender. He was alleged to have committed sexual assault upon a minor victim and to have recorded videos of the incident. The seriousness of the allegations, coupled with the vulnerability of the victim, formed part of the submissions.
The defence placed arguments before the trial court regarding the applicant’s entitlement to bail, whereas the prosecution opposed, emphasizing the gravity of the allegations and the potential impact on a fair trial if the accused was released at this stage. The status report submitted by the trial court indicated that the defence was not examining prosecution witnesses, while the trial was already underway.
The prosecution case rested upon serious charges involving sexual assault, kidnapping, extortion, and transmission of explicit material through electronic means. The statutory provisions included severe offences under the Indian Penal Code such as Sections 363 (kidnapping), 366 (abduction), 376 (rape), and 384 (extortion). Additionally, offences were invoked under the POCSO Act provisions relating to aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon a minor and Section 67A of the IT Act concerning the transmission of sexually explicit content.
The Court, after considering the submissions, noted that the applicant’s role as described in the record pointed to his being the main accused. The seriousness of the alleged acts, involving sexual exploitation of a minor and the creation of digital evidence of the incident, was highlighted.
The Court recorded the prosecution’s contention that releasing the applicant on bail at this stage would adversely affect the fairness of the trial, particularly given the vulnerable position of the victim. The prosecution also relied upon the trial court’s report which indicated non-cooperation of the defence in examining prosecution witnesses, thereby causing delays in the proceedings.
Thus, the Court acknowledged that the trial had already commenced and evidence was being recorded. Considering the factual scenario, the nature of the charges, and the potential impact on the fairness of proceedings, the Court proceeded to examine whether the bail application could be sustained.
Justice Ajay Bhanot recorded that the applicant had been “identified as the principal offender who committed rape with the minor victim. He has also captured the videos of the incident.”
The Court noted the gravity of the allegations, stating: “Considering the vulnerability of the victim releasing the applicant on bail at this stage will not be conducive to a fair trial.”
The order further recorded: “The offence is grave. There is likelihood that the applicant committed the offence.”
On the status of proceedings, the Court observed: “Status report sent by learned trial court records that the defence is not examining the prosecution witness. The trial is on foot.”
In its broader reflection on criminal procedure, Justice Bhanot stated: “Though no specific time frame to conclude the trial has been set out in the Cr.P.C., yet the legislative intent of Section 309 Cr.P.C. is explicit. The scheme of the provision clearly shows that the legislative intent is to conclude the trial in an expeditious time frame.”
The Court also expressed concern regarding systemic delays, recording: “The delay in the trials caused by the failure of the police authorities to serve summons or execute coercive measures to compel the appearance of witnesses at the trial despite a statutory mandate, is an issue of grave concern.”
It was further noted that this issue had arisen earlier in Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir v. State of U.P. and Jitendra v. State of U.P., where detailed directions had been issued to the police authorities. The Court also referred to compliance orders already issued by the Director General of Police and the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh.
Justice Bhanot finally remarked that trial courts must ensure compliance with the directions given earlier in Noor Alam v. State of U.P., particularly during strikes, so that proceedings are not delayed.
The Court dismissed the bail application without entering into the merits of the case. It directed the trial court to make all endeavours to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
The Court instructed that all witnesses and counsels must cooperate in the trial, and that the trial court should issue summons both under Section 62 Cr.P.C. by ordinary process and under Section 69 Cr.P.C. by registered post to accelerate service.
It was ordered that the trial court take strict coercive measures against witnesses who fail to appear and, in appropriate cases, impose exemplary costs on counsels or parties responsible for obstructing proceedings.
The police authorities were directed to execute all warrants or coercive measures promptly. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarnagar was specifically directed to file an affidavit before the trial court on each fixed date regarding the status of execution of summons and warrants.
The trial court was directed to verify compliance with earlier directions of this Court in Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir and Jitendra cases, as well as the orders of the Director General of Police and the Home Secretary. Where police authorities fail to implement the directions, the trial court was empowered to summon officials in person after requiring affidavits.
The Court ordered that the trial judge must submit fortnightly reports on the progress of trial and compliance with this order to the District Judge. Finally, the Registrar (Compliance) was directed to circulate the order to the trial judge, the District Judge, and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarnagar by email.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Abhishek Srivastava, Ajay Nand Pandey
For the Respondents: Adnan Aamir, G.A.
Case Title: Muneer v. State of U.P. and 3 Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:142664
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18557 of 2025
Bench: Justice Ajay Bhanot
