Babu Lal vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court held that while technically the learned court below had not erred in issuing Non-Bailable Warrants, as the applicant's absence on many dates was not denied, the prolonged delay of over 16 years in framing charges was concerning. The Court acknowledged the observations in its earlier order dated 10.8.2006, implying that such a lengthy delay in charge framing was not anticipated. Therefore, the Court disposed of the present application with a direction that if the applicant appears before the learned court below on the next date and applies for cancellation of the Non-Bailable Warrants, the prayer should be considered appropriately. The aim is to allow the applicant to participate without harsh coercive measures. Furthermore, subject to this compliance, the Court directed that charges, if any, should be framed within the next two months. The issue of whether the initial charge sheet under the U.P. Gangsters Act was validly filed was not expressly decided, but the focus was on the procedural aspect of warrant issuance and charge framing.

Facts

The applicant, Babu Lal, challenged a charge sheet dated 25.9.2003 in GST No. 115 of 2004, arising from Case Crime No. 42 of 2003, for offenses under the IPC, the U.P. Electric Wire and Transformers (Prevention and Punishment of Theft) Act 1976, and the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act 1986. He also challenged Non-Bailable Warrants issued on 13.9.2022. Previously, this Court, in Application U/S 482 No. 9483 of 2006, had stayed the execution of non-bailable warrants until the stage of charge framing, noting that the applicant's name did not figure in the gang chart. The applicant contended that despite over 16 years passing, no charges had been framed, and the subsequent issuance of warrants contradicted the earlier court order. The State argued that warrants were issued due to the applicant's absence on multiple dates.

Key Issues

1. Whether the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants on 13.9.2022, after a previous order of this Court dated 10.8.2006 staying such warrants until charge framing, is legally sustainable, particularly in light of the prolonged delay in framing charges? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Sections 239 Cr.P.C. and the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act 1986). Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants was in direct contravention of this Court's previous order dated 10.8.2006, which had stayed such warrants until the stage of charge framing. He emphasized that over 16 years had elapsed without charges being framed, making the subsequent issuance of warrants unjust and coercive. The applicant relied on the previous order of this Court as a precedent. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State contended that the Non-Bailable Warrants were issued legitimately because the applicant had remained absent on numerous dates before the learned court below. This absence, they argued, justified the issuance of warrants to ensure the applicant's appearance.