"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", a bench of Justice Rajeev Bharti observed while granting anticipatory bail to 2 men in a kidnapping case registered in the year 2001.

The bench termed it "deeply disturbing" that the trial of such an old case has been pending for over two decades without reaching its logical conclusion.

The Court stressed that 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.

Briefly put, on December 12, 2001, an FIR was lodged by the informant alleging that a 15-year-old girl had gone missing while her guardian was out for work.

It was further claimed that the accused, Ajay Kumar, with the assistance of the coaccused, 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 was registered, and the investigation commenced.

In April 2002, a charge sheet was filed against the accused under Sections 363 (kidnapping) and 366 (kidnapping, abducting or inducing a woman to compel her marriage) IPC.

Consequently, the Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the accused to face trial.

Challenging the summons, the accused had earlier moved the High Court in 2007, wherein they were granted interim protection.

The petition was ultimately dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench for want of prosecution because no one appeared on behalf of the applicants. The interim protection was vacated, and the trial court was directed to ensure compliance.

Despite this, no effective proceedings took place for a considerable period, and the case remained pending. Subsequently, the trial court resumed the proceedings and on May 26, 2026, bailable warrants were issued against the applicants to secure their presence before the Court.

Therefore, seeking anticipatory bail, the applicants moved the High Court.

It was submitted by their counsel that the victim had voluntarily accompanied the accused back in 2001, as they were in a consensual relationship and presently, they are living happily as husband and wife with 3 kids.

The State, represented by the Additional Government Advocate (AGA), opposed bail but could not dispute that the couple is now married and living a peaceful matrimonial life.

Taking note of the extraordinary delay in the case, the absence of any previous criminal history, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the applicants' undertaking to cooperate with the trial, the Court found it expedient, in the interest of justice, to protect their liberty.

Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Musheer Alam vs. The State of U.P. and another, the High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application and directed the applicants to surrender before the trial court within 2 weeks, upon which they shall be released on bail subject to standard conditions.

Case Title - Ajay Kumar @ Chingi And Another Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 425