The Allahabad High Court has granted anticipatory bail to two men accused in a 25-year-old kidnapping case, warning that excessive institutional delays must not become the defining feature of the criminal justice system.
In an order issued on July 14, Justice Rajeev Bharti voiced strong concerns over the slow progress of the case, which was initiated in 2001. He stated that justice cannot be sacrificed to endless adjournments and prolonged inaction, adding that the common grievance of receiving nothing but consecutive court dates—often referred to as “tarikh pe tarikh”—should not characterize the legal system.
The court directed the two applicants to surrender before the trial court within two weeks, ordering their release on anticipatory bail upon surrender. In granting the relief, the court noted that the chargesheet had already been filed, the accused had no prior criminal record, and they had promised to cooperate with the trial.
Origin Of The Case
The case dates back to December 30, 2001, when a father filed a First Information Report alleging that his 15-year-old daughter had gone missing from their home on December 12, 2001. According to the complaint, local villagers reported seeing the accused persuade the girl to leave with them.
The complainant alleged that the accused abducted his daughter with the intent to marry her, and that she left the house with gold and silver jewelry alongside Rs 1,000 in cash. Following an investigation, the police filed a chargesheet in April 2002 under Indian Penal Code sections covering kidnapping and abduction for marriage.
Two Decades Of Legal Dormancy
The proceedings faced prolonged delays after the accused petitioned the High Court to quash the case. While the High Court initially granted them interim protection, it later dismissed their application when no legal representative appeared on behalf of the accused.
The trial court proceedings subsequently stalled for a substantial period before resuming and leading to the issuance of bailable warrants against the accused.
During the bail hearing, the accused argued that the case arose from a consensual relationship and that the girl had voluntarily accompanied the first applicant. The defense stated that the couple later married, reconciled with their families, and have lived together peacefully as husband and wife for years. The state opposed the bail plea but did not contest these factual assertions.
Justice Bharti observed that leaving a 2001 criminal case unresolved for more than two decades is entirely incompatible with the constitutional guarantee of a fair and speedy trial under Article 21. He described the prolonged stagnation of the case as reducing the trial to a mere formality.
