The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings pending for over 35 years against a Uttar Pradesh police constable accused of assaulting a fellow constable during Kumbh Mela duty following a dispute over food in a police mess. [Kailash Chandra Kapri v. State of Uttar Pradesh]
In a judgment dated April 29, a Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan allowed an appeal filed by police constable Kailash Chandra Kapri (accused) challenging an Allahabad High Court order refusing to quash criminal proceedings pending against him since 1991.
The Court noted that the case involved allegations of simple hurt and criminal intimidation but the prosecution had continued for 35 years without any justification.
“35 years for a trial for simple hurt and criminal intimidation is too long a time. Quick justice is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution," the Court said.
The Bench said that such prolonged proceedings violated the accused's right to a speedy trial and fair procedure under Article 21 and that permitting the prosecution to continue any further would be unjust.
The case arose from a 1989 FIR lodged at GRP Rambagh Police Station at Allahabad alleging that five police constables posted for Kumbh Mela duty assaulted another constable inside a police mess following a dispute over food.
The FIR named five constables including Kapri as accused.
The offences alleged included Sections 147 (rioting), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 504 IPC (intentional insult), along with Section 120 of the Railways Act.
After the chargesheet was filed, the matter came to be registered before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railway), Allahabad.
During the pendency of the proceedings, two co-accused died while the remaining two were acquitted in 2023 after the prosecution failed to examine any witness.
Kapri later approached the Allahabad High Court seeking the quashing of proceedings on the ground that prolonged delay violated his right to a speedy trial under Article 21.
However, the High Court refused to quash the proceedings, prompting him to move to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court said that merely granting relief to the accused would not serve the larger purpose behind the judgment. It added that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 should not remain an “abstract or illusory safeguard.
Taking note of the larger systemic issues flagged by the case, the top court directed the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court to furnish an affidavit containing detailed information on pending criminal cases, undertrial prisoners, judicial vacancies and bail applications across Uttar Pradesh.
The directions include furnishing information on:
- Total pending criminal cases before Judicial Magistrates First Class (JMFCs) and Chief Judicial Magistrates, age of such cases, number of undertrial prisoners and duration of their incarceration, status of such cases and impediments coming in the way of courts proceeding further with them;
- Total pending sessions cases in the State, age of such cases, number of undertrial prisoners and duration of their incarceration, status of such cases and impediments coming in the way of courts proceeding further with them;
- Present working strength of JMFCs, CJMs and Sessions Judges;
- Sanctioned strength of civil judges/JMFCs, CJMs and Sessions Judges;
- Vacancies in the cadres of JMFCs, CJMs and Sessions Judges;
- Pending proposals, if any, forwarded by the High Court to the State government for filling posts of JMFCs, CJMs and Sessions Judges.
The Court also sought detailed information regarding bail applications pending before the Allahabad High Court:
- Total pending bail applications as on April 30, 2026, categorised year-wise;
- Whether pending bail applications can be categorised on the basis of the period of custody undergone by undertrial prisoners;
- The number of cases where undertrials have spent over 10 years, 8-10 years, 6-8 years, 4-6 years, 2-4 years, 1-2 years and 0-1 years in custody;
- Whether any mechanism exists to prioritise old bail matters and cases involving prolonged incarceration;
- The number of undertrial prisoners who have remained in custody for over five years without their bail applications being filed or decided.
The Bench directed that the affidavit be filed before the Supreme Court registry by July 13. It also also ordered that the matter be treated as part-heard for further consideration after receipt of the data.
The petitioner was represented by advocates Rajesh Gulab Inamdar, Shashwat Anand, Sheena Taqui, Akanksha Saini, Shashank Tiwari, Ankur Azad, Saumitra Anand, Faiz Ahmad, Shrey Bhushan, Raghav Grover and Mohd. Kumail Haider.
The State was represented by advocate Ruchira Goel.
[Read Judgment]