The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail in a 25-year-old kidnapping case, criticizing the prolonged legal delays. The court noted that the victim had voluntarily married the accused and the couple now has three children, questioning the necessity of continuing a case that has seen minimal progress for decades.
The Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow Bench has intervened in a criminal kidnapping case that has remained pending for 25 years. Justice Rajeev Bharti, while hearing the matter, expressed strong disapproval of the repeated adjournments and the lack of significant progress in the trial, characterizing the situation as a violation of the constitutional right to a speedy and fair trial under Article 21.
Details of the Case and Court Observations
The case dates back to 2001 and was registered at the Payagpur police station in Bahraich. According to the submissions presented before the court, the woman involved in the kidnapping complaint had voluntarily accompanied the accused. She subsequently married him and the couple has been living together for years, raising three children. During the hearing, the court noted that the State was unable to effectively counter these claims.
Justice Bharti observed that the legal proceedings had effectively become a formality, with years passing without meaningful movement toward a resolution. The court highlighted that justice cannot be held in suspension indefinitely, criticizing the procedural delays that keep individuals under the shadow of criminal charges for decades without conclusion.
Bail Granted with Conditions
In light of the circumstances and the long duration of the pendency, the High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants, Ajay Kumar and Ram Chandra. The court directed the accused to surrender before the relevant trial court within a period of two weeks. Upon surrender, they are to be released on bail, provided they comply with the specific conditions set by the judiciary.
It is important to note that the High Court clarified its remarks and the grant of bail are limited to the current application. The observations made by Justice Bharti are intended to highlight the systemic issues regarding trial delays and are not meant to influence the final merits of the case when the trial court eventually reaches a decision. The primary monitorable for this case remains the eventual conclusion of the trial proceedings, as the court’s intervention has now set a timeline for the accused to appear and move the legal process forward.