Allahabad High Court Criticizes Delays in 25-Year-Old Kidnapping Case
The Allahabad High Court has expressed its dissatisfaction with the protracted delay in a 25-year-old kidnapping case, underscoring that the phrase “tareekh pe tareekh” should not characterize the Indian judicial system. This statement was made in the case of Ajay Kumar & Anr. v. State of UP by Justice Rajeev Bharti while granting anticipatory bail to the accused individuals.
Justice Bharti lamented the stagnation in the proceedings, which seemed to have been dormant for years without significant progress. He emphasized that such delays are contrary to the constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. “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,” he stated.
Case Overview
The case originated from an FIR filed on December 30, 2001, accusing Ajay Kumar and co-accused Ram Chandra of abducting a 15-year-old girl. The prosecution alleged that the girl was taken from her home, and an informant reported seeing Ajay persuading her to leave. The girl reportedly left with valuables and a sum of ₹1,000. A chargesheet was filed by the police in April 2002, and the trial court subsequently summoned the accused.
In 2007, Ajay and Ram Chandra sought to quash the case in the High Court, which granted them protection from coercive action while the petition was pending. However, their petition was eventually dismissed for non-prosecution when neither the accused nor their lawyer appeared in court.
Years passed without significant trial progress until May 2026, when the trial court resumed proceedings by issuing bailable warrants for Ajay and Ram Chandra. Seeking anticipatory bail, Ajay argued in court that the alleged victim had willingly accompanied him, and they had since married and started a family. The State contested the bail application but did not refute these claims.
More Read
High Court’s Decision
Considering the extensive delay, lack of criminal history, the presence of a chargesheet, and Ajay’s commitment to cooperate with the trial, the High Court decided that the accused’s freedom should be safeguarded. The court instructed both defendants to surrender before the trial court within two weeks, where they would be granted anticipatory bail upon providing personal bonds and sureties, subject to certain conditions.
Justice Bharti clarified that the observations made were solely for the anticipatory bail proceedings and should not influence the trial court’s decision on the merits of the case. The detailed order of the court can be accessed for further information.
