HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 529 BNSS No. - 4228 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 Sessions Case No. 467 of 2022 (State vs. Dev Pratap @ Deepak), arising out of Case Crime No. 68 of 2018, under Sections 420, 328, 376, 384 IPC and under Section 66D, 66E Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Etah, pending before Additional Sessions Judge/FTC Ist, Etah 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 pertains to the year 2022, 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. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Narayan Singh(Kushwaha) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Dev Pratap Alias Deepak .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) State of U.P. and others, (2024) 6 SCC 267 has observed in paragraph 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 NA529 No. 4228 of 2026 2 may be granted include, in appropriate cases, the payment of costs by the prosecution or the accused.” 11. This Court would like to draw the attention of Court concerned that whenever N.B.W. or B.W. or any other process is issued against either accused or witness, then such Court is duty bound to make all endevour for ensuring execution of such N.B.W. or B.W. or other process. It is the bounden duty of every police officer promptly to obey and execute all orders and warrants lawfully issued to him by virtue of Section 23 of the Police Act, 1861. If such police officer violates his duty or neglect any lawful order passed by such Court, then he becomes guilty under Section 29 of the Police Act. Therefore, Courts are not powerless to ensure compliance of it's order and /or execution of lawful process issued by it. 12. The present application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations. September 11, 2026 Dhirendra/ NA529 No. 4228 of 2026 3 (Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad