SHASHIKANT VISHWAKARMA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri. Rakesh Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for applicant, learned Standing Counsel for State and perused the record. It is really surprising that Bail Application No. 311 of 2014 Ravi Shashikant Vishwakarma v. State of U.P., filed on behalf of applicant is not being attended and disposed of by Sessions Judge, Chandauli, as is evident from orders dated 05.05.2014, 09.05.2014, 15.05.2014, 20.05.2014, 26.05.2014 and 02.06.2014, whereby the same has been adjourned only on the ground that Advocates are on strike and therefore, request of prosecution for adjournment is accepted,

(2.) This approach on the part of Sessions Judge concerned is apparently illegal, inasmuch as in my view, he has failed to discharge his duties in the manner as laid down by a Seven Judges' decision of this Court in Amaravati and another v. State of U.P., 2005 CrLJ 755(All) and approved in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., 2009 4 SCC 437 .

(3.) Both the above authorities have also dealt with the tendency of Courts in not passing orders on bail applications expeditiously, by applying mind, and instead simply deferring proceedings. It has been considered by this Court also in Trilok Chand v. State of U.P. and Anr. (Application u/S. 482, Cr.P.C. No. 19926 of 2013, decided on 19.06.2013), and deprecating above tendency, in paragraph Nos. 22 and 23, this Court has said: