A criminal case that has remained unresolved for nearly a quarter of a century has prompted the Allahabad High Court to question the culture of prolonged adjournments and institutional delay, warning that “tareekh pe tareekh” must not become the defining identity of the justice system.
The observation came as Justice Rajeev Bharti granted anticipatory bail to two accused in a kidnapping case dating back to 2001.
The Court noted that the proceedings had remained virtually inactive for years, with no meaningful progress in the trial. Such prolonged stagnation, it said, runs contrary to the constitutional promise of a fair and speedy trial under Article 21.
“The record reveals a rather disquieting state of affairs,” the Court observed, adding that justice could not be allowed to become “a casualty of endless adjournments and prolonged institutional inaction.”
The case began with an FIR registered on December 30, 2001, over the alleged abduction of a 15-year-old girl. The prosecution claimed that she was taken away from her home by Ajay Kumar with the assistance of co-accused Ram Chandra.
According to the allegations, the girl was alone at home when she disappeared. Two villagers reportedly claimed to have seen Ajay taking her away. The prosecution further alleged that he intended to marry her against her wishes and that she had taken gold and silver ornaments and ₹1,000 in cash when she left.
The police filed a chargesheet in April 2002, after which the trial court took cognisance of the case and summoned the accused.
Five years later, Ajay Kumar and Ram Chandra approached the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings. They were granted interim protection from coercive action while the petition remained pending.
The matter eventually stalled after the accused and their lawyer failed to appear. The High Court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution and withdrew the protection previously granted.
Despite this, the criminal case did not move forward for years. The trial court took steps to revive the proceedings only in May 2026, when bailable warrants were issued to secure the presence of the accused.
Seeking anticipatory bail, Ajay told the High Court that the woman had gone with him voluntarily and that the two had been in a consensual relationship. The Court was also informed that they later married and now live together with their three children.
The State opposed the plea but did not dispute these claims.
The High Court took into account the extraordinary delay, the absence of any previous criminal record, the fact that the chargesheet had already been filed and Ajay’s assurance that he would cooperate with the trial.
It directed both accused to surrender before the trial court within two weeks. They were then ordered to be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing the required bonds and sureties, subject to conditions.
The Court made it clear that its observations were limited to the bail proceedings and would not affect the trial court’s independent assessment of the evidence and merits of the case.
