"Absolutely Unacceptable": Supreme Court Expresses Surprise Over Non-Framing of Charges After 3 Years; Calls for Report from Sessions Judge
The Court also remarked that there is apparent slackness on the part of the Prosecution to assist the Court for framing of charges.
Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court expressed surprise over the non-framing of charges after almost three years of submission of the chargesheet consequently called for a report from the concerned Sessions Judge.
The Court was hearing a petition seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the Accused by the Allahabad High Court after about thirty-nine months of the Accused's incarceration.
The bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K Vinod Chandran observed, "It is well within the means of the Court to ensure that the requirement of law is fulfilled, but withholding of framing of charges for such a long time is absolutely unacceptable as it reflects as if the Court is helpless in the matter. Moreover, we find that there is apparent slackness on the part of the prosecution to assist the Court for ensuring that charges are framed...Before taking a final view in the matter, let a report be called from the Additional District and Sessions Judge-II/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gautam Budh Nagar in Case Crime No.280 of 2022 as to why, even the charges have not been framed till date."
AOR Dhananjali Jain appeared for the Petitioner, while Senior Advocates Rajdip Behura and Sanjay Hegde appeared for the Respondents.
On the query by the Court regarding the stage of the trial, the Counsel for the Respondent-State submitted that the chargesheet was submitted in the month of November 2022 and cognizance was taken in the month of August 2022, but no charges were framed.
Further, on a query of the Court as to the reason thereof, it was submitted that when the Accused was under custody, he was lodged in a Jail in Haridwar, Uttarakhand, and despite a request being sent by the Court in the present case, he was not produced before the Court.
"We are surprised on such stand taken by learned senior counsel for the respondent no.1-State.", the Court remarked.
A Special Leave Petition filed against the order passed by the Allahabad High Court granting bail to the person accused of the offences under Sections 420,467,468,471,384,120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act.
The Accused had moved to the High Court seeking release on bail after the Sessions Court had rejected the same.
The High Court, while granting bail to the Accused, had observed, "Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; appellant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, Court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail."
Accordingly, now the matter is listed for further hearing.
Cause Title: Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).2238/2025]
Appearance:
Petitioner: AOR Dhananjali Jain, Advocates Anurag Mishra, Bhoop Singh, Omita Unnankar, Abhinav Bhansal.
Respondents: Senior Advocates Rajdip Behura, Sanjay Hegde, AORs Vijendra Singh, Ayush Anand, Advocates Sthavi Asthana, Pankaj Singhal, Ashima Gupta, Anant Singh Tomar, Ankit Tiwari and Monu Kumar.