Allahabad High Court On 25-Year Delay In Kidnapping Case

While speaking the most innermost voice of every person who is most hugely tormented by the most worst malaise of “Tareekh Pe Tareekh”, the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Ajay Kumar & Anr vs State of UP in Ajay Kumar @ Chingi And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another in Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. - 498 of 2026 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026:AHC:LKO:46270 that was pronounced just recently on July 14, 2026 has minced absolutely just no words to hold indubitably about the 25-year delay in a kidnapping case that the oft-quoted expression “Tareekh Pe Tareekh” should never become the defining feature of India’s criminal justice system.

It must be mentioned here that the Bench was dealing with a kidnapping case that was registered in 2001 and that is still awaiting trial.

It must be noted that the proceedings had remained dormant for years without any meaningful progress and held that such extraordinary delay was incompatible with the constitutional guarantee of a fair and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

While granting relief to the applicant, the Court made it crystal clear that its observations were confined to the anticipatory bail proceedings and would not influence the Trial Court while deciding the case on merits.

Key Highlights of the Judgement

Particular	Details
Case Title	Ajay Kumar @ Chingi And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another
Court	Lucknow Bench, Allahabad High Court
Case Type	Criminal Mis c. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 498 of 2026
Neutral Citation	2026: AHC:LKO:46270
Date of Judgement	July 14, 2026
Presiding Judge	Hon'ble Mr Justice Rajeev Bharti
Core Issue	25-year delay in the trial of a kidnapping case registered in 2001
Constitutional Principle	Right to Fair and Speedy Trial under Article 21 of the Constitution

Court Observations on Delay in Criminal Trials

• The kidnapping case was registered in 2001 and is still awaiting trial.
• The proceedings remained dormant for years without meaningful progress.
• The Court observed that such extraordinary delay is incompatible with the constitutional guarantee of a fair and speedy trial under Article 21.
• The Bench emphasised that "Tareekh Pe Tareekh" should never become the defining feature of India's criminal justice system.
• The observations were confined only to the anticipatory bail proceedings and would not influence the trial court while deciding the case on merits.

Opening Observations of the Court

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajeev Bharti of Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth in the opening para that,

“Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.”

Anticipatory Bail Application Background

As we see, the Bench then points out in the next para of this leading judgment that, “The present application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.245 of 2001, under Section 363, 366 I.P.C., Police Station Payagpur, District Bahraich.”

Factual Matrix of the Case

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in the next para while dwelling on the factual matrix stating that, “The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that Opposite Party No.2 lodged a written application dated 30.12.2001 before Police Station Payagpur, District Bahraich, on the basis whereof Case Crime No. 245 of 2001 was registered on the same day under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code.”

Case Registration Overview

Particular	Details
Case Crime No.	245 of 2001
Date of Complaint	30.12.2001
Police Station	Payagpur
District	Bahraich
Offences Invoked	Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code

Prosecution Case Summary

While elaborating on the prosecution case, the Bench points out in the next para that, “As per the prosecution case, on 12.12.2001 at about 3:00 p.m., the victim, namely Bittu, aged about 15 years, was alone at her residence while the informant had gone out for work. Upon returning in the evening, the informant found that the victim was missing. Despite making a diligent search, her whereabouts could not be ascertained. During the search, one Radhika Chamar and Hari Ram Chamar allegedly informed the informant that they had seen accused Ajay Kumar, accompanied by co-accused Ram Chandra, persuading and taking away the victim.”

Key Prosecution Allegations

• The incident allegedly occurred on 12.12.2001 at about 3:00 p.m.
• The victim, Bittu, was stated to be about 15 years of age.
• The informant allegedly discovered that the victim was missing upon returning home.
• A search for the victim was conducted but proved unsuccessful.
• Witnesses Radhika Chamar and Hari Ram Chamar allegedly saw Ajay Kumar @ Chingi and Ram Chandra taking away the victim.

Alleged Abduction and Further Accusations

As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in the next para that "It was further alleged that accused Ajay Kumar, with the assistance of co-accused Ram Chandra, enticed and abducted the victim against her will with the intention of contracting marriage with her. It was also alleged that while leaving the house, the victim had taken with her gold and silver ornaments along with cash amounting to Rs.1,000/-. On these allegations, the First Information Report came to be registered and the investigation commenced.”

Important Allegations in the FIR

• The victim was allegedly enticed and abducted against her will.
• The alleged intention was to contract marriage with the victim.
• Gold ornaments, silver ornaments, and cash of Rs.1,000/- were allegedly taken.
• An FIR was registered, and investigation commenced thereafter.

Investigation and Charge-Sheet

As things stands, the Bench observes in the next para that, “Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer found sufficient material against the accused-applicants and submitted Charge-sheet No. 24 of 2002 dated 05.04.2002 for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code.”

Charge-Sheet Details

Particular	Details
Charge-Sheet No.	24 of 2002
Date	05.04.2002
Offences	Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code
Finding	Sufficient material was found against the accused-applicants.

Cognisance by the Magistrate

Do note, the Bench then notes in the next para of this robust judgment that, “On the basis of the aforesaid charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code and summoned the accused-applicants to face trial.”

Magistrate's Order Highlights

• The magistrate took cognisance of the offences.
• The offences involved were under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code.
• The accused-applicants were summoned to face trial.

Section 482 Cr.P.C. Proceedings Before the High Court

As a corollary, the Bench then points out in the next para of this creditworthy judgment that, “Aggrieved thereby, the applicants preferred an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being Application No. 3227 of 2007, before this Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. During the pendency of the said application, interim protection was granted in favour of the applicants. However, when the matter was subsequently listed, none appeared on behalf of the applicants to prosecute the case. Consequently, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the aforesaid application for want of prosecution, vacated the interim protection earlier granted, and directed that a copy of the order be transmitted to the District and Sessions Judge concerned for ensuring compliance.”

Procedural History at a Glance

• The applicants filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
• The application sought quashing of the criminal proceedings.
• Interim protection was initially granted.
• The application was later dismissed for want of prosecution due to non-appearance.
• The interim protection was vacated.
• A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the concerned District and Sessions Judge for compliance.

Court Observations on Delayed Criminal Trial

Do further note, the Bench then notes in the next paragraph of this brilliant judgement that, “Thereafter, no effective proceedings took place for a considerable period, and the case remained pending. Subsequently, the learned trial court resumed the proceedings and, by order dated 25.05.2026, issued bailable warrants against the applicants to secure their presence before the court."

Applicants' Submissions Before the Court

Truth be told, the Bench points out in the next paragraph of this meticulous judgement that "learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the present case pertains to a very old incident. It was further submitted that the victim had voluntarily accompanied Applicant No. 1, as both were in a consensual relationship and subsequently solemnised their marriage. He further submitted that Applicant No. 1 and the victim have since reconciled with the marriage, and the couple is presently living together happily as husband and wife. It was further submitted that out of the said wedlock, they have been blessed with three children, and they are leading a peaceful matrimonial life.”

Key Submissions by the Applicants

• The case relates to an incident that occurred many years ago.
• The victim voluntarily accompanied Applicant No. 1.
• Both parties were in a consensual relationship.
• The parties subsequently solemnised their marriage.
• The husband and wife have reconciled and are living together happily.
• The couple has been blessed with three children.
• They are presently leading a peaceful matrimonial life.

State's Opposition to Bail

It cannot be allowed to go unnoticed that the Bench lays bare in the next para of this most commendable judgement that, “Learned AGA for the State opposed the bail but could not dispute the above-mentioned case.”

Article 21 and the Right to a Speedy Trial

Most forthrightly, the Bench underscores in the next para of this courageous judgment that, “At the very outset, this Court finds it deeply disturbing that the present criminal case, arising out of an FIR registered in the year 2001, has remained pending for over two decades without reaching its logical conclusion. Such an extraordinary delay is wholly incompatible with the constitutional guarantee of a fair and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

Constitutional Concerns Highlighted by the Court

Issue	Court's Observation
Age of the FIR	Registered in the year 2001.
Delay in Trial	Pending for over two decades without reaching its logical conclusion.
Constitutional Principle	Violates the guarantee of a fair and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Court on Prolonged Institutional Inaction

Most significantly, most remarkably and so also most commendably, the Bench encapsulates in the next para of this noteworthy judgement postulating precisely that, “The record reveals a rather disquieting state of affairs. For years together, the proceedings remained dormant without any meaningful progress, reducing the criminal trial to a mere formality. Justice cannot be permitted to become a casualty of endless adjournments and prolonged institutional inaction. The oft-quoted expression that litigants receive nothing but ‘तारीख़ पे तारीख़’ is not expected to become the hallmark of the criminal justice delivery system.”

Major Judicial Observations

• The proceedings remained dormant for years without meaningful progress.
• The criminal trial was reduced to a mere formality.
• Justice should not become a casualty of endless adjournments.
• Prolonged institutional inaction undermines the criminal justice system.
• The phrase “तारीख़ पे तारीख़” should never become the hallmark of criminal justice delivery.

Court Protects Liberty and Grants Anticipatory Bail

On a pragmatic note, the Bench then holds in the next para of this persuasive judgment that, “On due consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, material available on record and the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal history; charge-sheet in the case has been filed, the undertaking given by the applicant to cooperate in the trial as also the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Musheer Alam versus The State of U.P. and another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 116, it would be expedient in the interest of justice that the liberty of the applicants needs to be protected.”

Directions Issued by the Division Bench

Resultantly, the Division Bench then directs and holds in the next para of this pertinent judgment that, “In view of the above, the applicants- Ajay Kumar @ Chingi and Ram Chandra are directed to surrender before the trial court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Upon their surrender, the trial court shall release them on anticipatory bail, subject to their furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each of the same amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court, with the following conditions:

Conditions of Anticipatory Bail

Condition No.	Condition Imposed by the Court
(i)	The applicants shall refrain from directly or indirectly inducing, threatening, or promising any person familiar with the facts of the case in a manner that may dissuade them from revealing such facts before the Court or result in tampering with the evidence.
(ii)	The applicants shall not travel outside India without prior permission from the court.
(iii)	The applicants shall not attempt to influence or intimidate any prosecution witness.
(iv)	The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on all scheduled dates unless specifically exempted from personal appearance.
(v)	In the event of any violation of the aforementioned conditions, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.

Additional Conditions by the Trial Court

While adding a rider, the Bench then further stipulates in the next para of this progressive judgement that "any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed.”

Clarification Regarding the Trial

For sake of clarity, the Bench then clarifies in the next para of this peculiar judgment that, “It is made clear that the observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.”

Anticipatory Bail Application Allowed

Finally, the Bench then concludes by directing and holding in the final para of this notable judgement that, “In view of the aforesaid, the anticipatory bail application is allowed.”

Conclusion: Adjournment Culture Must End

By all accounts and by any reckoning, we see that this remarkable judgement has made it crystal clear that “Tareekh Pe Tareekh” shouldn’t become a hallmark of the justice system. Absolutely right! No doubt, all the courts in India must pay heed to what has been held in this leading case and rule accordingly so that adjournment culture is nipped in the bud altogether, as it brooks no more delay any longer now!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A-82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.