Allahabad High Court Grants Bail After 25-Year Delay, Terms 'Tarikh Pe Tarikh' a Failure of Justice

The Allahabad High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to two men accused in a 25-year-old kidnapping case, expressing concern over the extraordinary delay in the trial and stating that the often-quoted expression 'tarikh pe tarikh' cannot become the hallmark of the criminal justice system.

Justice Rajeev Bharti, in an order passed on July 14, observed that 'justice cannot be permitted to become a casualty of endless adjournments and prolonged institutional inaction.' The court noted that the case, registered in 2001, had remained pending for over two decades without reaching a logical conclusion, which is incompatible with the constitutional guarantee of a fair and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The case originates from a First Information Report (FIR) lodged on December 30, 2001, by a man who alleged that his 15-year-old daughter had gone missing from their home on December 12, 2001. According to the FIR, two villagers informed him that the accused had persuaded and taken the girl away. The complainant alleged that the accused abducted the girl with the intention of marrying her and that she had taken gold and silver ornaments and Rs 1,000 in cash when leaving.

Following investigation, the police filed a chargesheet in April 2002 under sections 363 (kidnapping) and 366 (abduction for marriage) of the Indian Penal Code. The accused persons subsequently moved the high court to quash the proceedings, and interim protection was granted. However, when the matter was later listed, no one appeared on their behalf, and the high court dismissed the application.

The court observed that for years, the proceedings remained dormant without any meaningful progress, reducing the criminal trial to a mere formality. Later, the trial court resumed proceedings and issued bailable warrants against the accused.

The accused submitted that the case arose out of a consensual relationship and that the girl had voluntarily accompanied the first applicant. They told the court that they later married, reconciled with their families, and had been living together peacefully as husband and wife for years. The state opposed the plea but did not dispute these facts.

Taking into account the applicants' lack of criminal antecedents, the filing of the chargesheet, and their undertaking to cooperate with the trial, the high court granted them protection. It directed the applicants to surrender before the trial court within two weeks and ordered that upon surrender, they shall be released on anticipatory bail.