'Tareekh pe Tareekh' shouldn't become hallmark of justice system: Allahabad HC in 25-year-old case

The Allahabad High Court recently lamented the 24-year delay in a kidnapping case, observing that the oft-quoted expression “tareekh pe tareekh” should never become the defining feature of India’s criminal justice system [Ajay Kumar & Anr. v. State of UP].

Justice Rajeev Bharti made the observation while granting anticipatory bail to the two accused in the case.

The Court noted that the proceedings had remained dormant for years without any meaningful progress and held that such extraordinary delay was incompatible with the constitutional guarantee of fair and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

“The record reveals a rather disquieting state of affairs. 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. The oft-quoted expression that litigants receive nothing but ‘तारीख़ पे तारीख़’ is not expected to become the hallmark of the criminal justice delivery system,” it noted.

The case arose from a first information report (FIR) registered on December 30, 2001, alleging that a 15-year-old girl had been abducted by the accused, Ajay Kumar with the help of co-accused Ram Chandra.

According to the prosecution, the girl had been alone at home when she went missing. An informant later claimed that two villagers had seen Ajay persuading and taking her away. It was alleged that the Ajay intended to marry the girl against her will and that she had left home with gold and silver ornaments along with ₹1,000 in cash.

After investigation, the police filed a chargesheet in April 2002, following which the trial court took cognisance and summoned the Ajay and Chandra.

The proceedings, however, took a different turn when Ajay and Ram Chandra approached the High Court in 2007 seeking to have the criminal case quashed. While the petition was pending, the High Court protected them from coercive action.

Later, when the case came up for hearing, neither Ajay nor his lawyer appeared before the Court. The High Court, therefore, dismissed the petition for non-prosecution and withdrew the interim protection it had earlier granted.

Even after that, little happened in the trial for years. It was only in May 2026 that the trial court revived the proceedings and issued bailable warrants to secure Ajay’s and Ram Chandra’s presence.

Seeking anticipatory bail before the High Court, Ajay argued that the alleged victim had voluntarily accompanied him, as the two were in a consensual relationship. They later got married and are now living together as husband and wife with three children, the Court was told.

The State opposed the plea, but did not dispute these factual assertions.

Taking note of the prolonged delay, the absence of any criminal antecedents, the filing of the chargesheet and Ajay’s undertaking to cooperate with the trial, the Court held that his liberty deserved protection.

It directed both accused to surrender before the trial court within two weeks, upon which they are to be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing personal bonds and sureties, subject to conditions.

While granting relief, the Court clarified that its observations were confined to the anticipatory bail proceedings and would not influence the trial court while deciding the case on merits.

[Read Order]