[2025:RJ-JP:5090] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2057/2023 Aman Chaudhary S/o Shri Surendra Chaudhary, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 102/116, Patel Marg, Shipra Path, Mansarover, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 05/02/2025 1. The present criminal writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on 28.08.2023 with a prayer to issue direction to the learned Court below to dispose of the Criminal Case No.166/2020 titled as State Vs. Aman Chaudhary & others, within a period of six months. 2. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi Vs. State of Maharashtra in Criminal appeal No.4758/2024 arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No.13366/2024 decided on 25.11.2024, has observed as under:- "Before we part with this order, every day we notice that in several orders passed by different High Courts while rejecting the bail applications, in a routine manner, the High Courts are fixing a time-bound schedule for the conclusion of the trials. Such directions [2025:RJ-JP:5090] (2 of 3) [CRLW-2057/2023] adversely affect the functioning of the Trial Courts as in many Trial Courts, there may be older cases of the same category pending. Every court has criminal cases pending which require expeditious disposal for several reasons, such as the requirement of the penal statutes, long incarceration, age of the accused, etc. Only because someone files a case in our Constitutional Courts, he cannot get out of turn hearing. Perhaps after rejecting the prayer for bail, the Courts want to give some satisfaction to the accused by fixing a time-bound schedule for trial. Such orders are difficult to implement. Such orders give a false hope to the litigants. If in a given case, in law and on facts, an accused is entitled to bail on the ground of long incarceration without the trial making any progress, the Court must grant bail. Option of expediating trial is not the solution. In paragraph 47.3 of the decision of a Constitution Bench of in the case of ‘High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.’1 , this Court has held that in the ordinary course, the Constitutional Courts should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other Courts. Paragraph 47.3 reads thus: 1 (2024) 6 SCC 267 “47.3. Constitutional courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other courts. Constitutional courts may issue directions for the time-bound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. The issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the courts concerned where the cases are pending;” (underline supplied) A direction which can be issued in exceptional circumstances is being routinely issued by High Courts without noticing the law laid down by the Constitution Bench." 4. In view of the aforesaid observations of Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi (supra), no direction can be issued to the learned trial Court for completing the trial of a case within a stipulated period. [2025:RJ-JP:5090] (3 of 3) [CRLW-2057/2023] 5. Accordingly, the present criminal writ petition is dismissed. 6. Since the main petition has been dismissed, the stay application and all pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J ARTI SHARMA /128