Allahabad High Court Says Justice Cannot Be 'Tareekh Pe Tareekh', Grants Bail in 25-Year-Old Kidnapping Case

The Allahabad High Court has strongly criticised the prolonged delay in a kidnapping case that has remained pending for nearly 25 years, observing that the criminal justice system cannot be reduced to the phrase "tareekh pe tareekh."

While granting anticipatory bail to two accused in the 2001 case, the court emphasised that such extraordinary delays undermine the constitutional guarantee of a speedy and fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The High Court also remarked that justice cannot remain suspended indefinitely through repeated adjournments.

Court Highlights Right to Speedy Trial

The observations were made by Justice Rajeev Bharti of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court while hearing the anticipatory bail plea of Ajay Kumar alias Chingi and Ram Chandra.

The case relates to a kidnapping FIR registered in 2001 at Payagpur Police Station in Bahraich district.

During the hearing, the court was informed that the woman had allegedly accompanied Ajay Kumar voluntarily, later married him, and the couple now has three children.

The State was reportedly unable to effectively dispute these facts during the proceedings.

'Justice Cannot Be Kept Pending Forever'

Expressing concern over the prolonged pendency, the High Court observed that there had been no meaningful progress in the criminal trial for years.

The court stated that criminal proceedings cannot continue as a mere formality and that justice delayed for decades defeats the purpose of the legal process.

Referring to the famous dialogue "tareekh pe tareekh" from the Bollywood film Damini, the court said repeated adjournments should not become the defining feature of India's criminal justice system.

Anticipatory Bail Granted

The High Court directed both accused to surrender before the trial court within two weeks.

It further ordered that they be granted anticipatory bail, subject to compliance with the conditions imposed by the court.

The Bench also clarified that the observations made while deciding the bail application should not influence the trial court during the final adjudication of the case.

Article 21 and Speedy Justice

Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which has consistently been interpreted by Indian courts to include the right to a speedy and fair trial.

Courts have repeatedly held that excessive delays in criminal proceedings can violate fundamental rights, particularly when trials remain pending for decades without substantial progress.

The Allahabad High Court's latest observations reinforce the importance of timely justice and judicial efficiency.

Key Highlights

• The Allahabad High Court criticised a 25-year delay in a kidnapping trial.
• The court said justice cannot become "tareekh pe tareekh."
• It granted anticipatory bail to two accused in the 2001 Bahraich kidnapping case.
• The court cited Article 21, which guarantees the right to a speedy and fair trial.
• It directed the accused to surrender before the trial court within two weeks.
• The High Court clarified that its observations should not affect the final trial.

FAQs

Why did the Allahabad High Court criticise the trial?

The court said the kidnapping case had remained pending for nearly 25 years without meaningful progress, violating the constitutional right to a speedy trial.

What did the court mean by 'tareekh pe tareekh'?

The phrase refers to repeated court adjournments and was used by the High Court to criticise prolonged delays in the criminal justice system.

Who granted the anticipatory bail?

The order was passed by Justice Rajeev Bharti of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court.

What is Article 21 of the Constitution?

Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to a speedy and fair trial.

Did the High Court decide the merits of the case?

No. The court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail proceedings and should not influence the trial court's final decision.