HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 529 BNSS No. - 4323 of 2026 Court No. - 78 HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and perused material on record. 2. The present application has been filed by the applicant with prayer to direct the learned trial court to decide/expedite the Case No. 3144 of 2003 (New No. 381/2019) (State vs. Jitendra Kumar @ Guddu) arising out of Case Crime No. 213 of 2002, under Sections 494, 495, 496, 420, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Bhatni, District Deoria, pending before Additional Civil Judge, Court No. 27, Deoria within stipulated period. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the proceedings before the court concerned be directed to be concluded in a time bound manner. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that matter belongs to the year 2003, which is still pending and has not been decided till now. Therefore, he requested that a direction to learned trial court be issued to decide the aforesaid case within a stipulated period of time. 4. Learned A.G.A. has no objection in this regard if the Court below is not already overloaded with huge pendency of such cases. 5. Hon’ble Apex Court in Shaikh Uzma Feroz Hussain vs. State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 587 of 2023 has observed that every High Court and every Court in the country has a huge pendency, the constitutional Court should avoid temptation of fixing a time bound schedule for disposal of any case before any Court unless the situation is extra ordinary. 6. Hon’ble Apex Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of U.P. and others, (2024) 6 SCC 267 has observed in paragraph Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Brij Bhushan Prasad Shrivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Jitendra Kumar @ Guddu .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 42, which is reproduced as under:- “Constitutional Courts should not normally fix a time-bound schedule for disposal of cases pending in any Court. The pattern of pendency of various categories of cases pending in every Court, including High Courts, is different. The situation at the grassroots level is better known to the judges of the concerned Courts. Therefore, the issue of giving out-of- turn priority to certain cases should be best left to the concerned Courts. The orders fixing the outer limit for the disposal of cases should be passed only in exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations.” 7. Thus, law as far as issuance of a direction for time bound/expeditious disposal has already been well settled that only when an exceptional circumstance is made out, a direction for time-bound/ expeditious disposal of such a case can be issued, not otherwise. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to make out any exceptional circumstances to issue direction for time-bound/expeditious disposal of case, at this stage. Accordingly, relief sought by way of present application is hereby refused. 9. Considering the nature of prayer made by counsel for the applicant, the interest of justice would be served, in the event, the applicant applies before the court concerned for expeditious disposal of the above mentioned case. Therefore, applicant is given a liberty to move an appropriate application before trial Court concerned for bringing out all such fact, which are necessary for expeditious disposal of his case within two weeks from today, and in case such an application is moved, the trial Court shall decide the same within six weeks from the date of filing of such application. If trial Court comes to conclusion that the case for expeditious disposal is made out then in that eventuality it shall decide the same as expeditiously as possible within a reasonable period. 10. However, looking into the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it is expected from the learned trial Court to conduct the pending proceedings before it strictly in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C./ Section 346 BNSS, as well as in the light of various binding directions issued by Hon’ble Apex Court from time to time regarding compliance of aforesaid section. This Court would also like to draw the attention of learned trial Court qua Explanation 2, which is reproduced herein-below: “Explanation 2. – The terms on which an adjournment or postponement may be granted include, in appropriate cases, the payment of costs by the NA529 No. 4323 of 2026 2 prosecution or the accused.” 11. The present application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observation. September 9, 2026 Dhirendra/ NA529 No. 4323 of 2026 3 (Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad