[ Allahabad High Court — Lucknow Bench ]

2001 Abduction FIR Lay Dormant for Over Two Decades; Allahabad HC Grants Anticipatory Bail After Bailable Warrants Revive Trial

Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench grants anticipatory bail in a 24-year-old abduction case after proceedings stalled, a Section 482 petition was dismissed for want of prosecution, and the trial court finally issued bailable warrants in May 2026.

Manaswi Singh — Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench — 21 July 2026 — 6 min read

A criminal case registered in December 2001 under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Payagpur, District Bahraich, has taken 24 years to reach a stage where bailable warrants were necessary to secure the accused's presence before the trial court. Justice Rajeev Bharti, sitting singly at the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, granted anticipatory bail to Ajay Kumar @ Chingi and Ram Chandra on 14 July 2026. The Court granted the relief partly on account of the extraordinary delay, the fact that the victim and Applicant No. 1 had married and were living together with three children, the applicants' clean criminal history, and the Supreme Court's ruling in Musheer Alam v. The State of U.P. and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 116.

The FIR, Charge-Sheet, and the Abortive Section 482 Petition

The FIR — Case Crime No. 245 of 2001 — was registered on 30 December 2001 on the written application of Opposite Party No. 2. The prosecution alleged that on 12 December 2001 at around 3:00 p.m., the victim Bittu, aged about 15 years, was alone at home when she went missing. Two witnesses, Radhika Chamar and Hari Ram Chamar, allegedly told the informant that they had seen Ajay Kumar @ Chingi, accompanied by co-accused Ram Chandra, persuading and taking away the victim. The FIR also alleged that the victim had taken gold and silver ornaments and Rs. 1,000 in cash while leaving.

After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted Charge-sheet No. 24 of 2002, dated 5 April 2002, for offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the accused-applicants to face trial.

The applicants did not proceed to trial at that stage. Instead, they filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 3227 of 2007 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. The Court granted interim protection during the pendency of that petition. However, when the matter came up for hearing subsequently, no one appeared on behalf of the applicants. The Co-ordinate Bench dismissed the Section 482 application for want of prosecution, vacated the interim protection, and directed that a copy of the order be transmitted to the District and Sessions Judge concerned for compliance.

With that quashing petition gone, the trial should have resumed. It did not, at least not meaningfully. The proceedings remained dormant for years. It was only when the trial court, by order dated 25 May 2026, issued bailable warrants against the applicants that the matter moved — prompting them to approach this Court once more, this time for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

The Applicants' Case Before the High Court

Counsel for the applicants, Ghulam Mohammad Kamil, submitted that the case pertains to a very old incident and that the underlying facts do not support the prosecution's characterisation of abduction. The submission was that the victim had voluntarily accompanied Applicant No. 1, with whom she was in a consensual relationship. The two subsequently solemnised their marriage. By the time this application was heard, the couple had been living together as husband and wife and had three children from the wedlock. Counsel further emphasised that Applicant No. 1 has no previous criminal history.

The learned Additional Government Advocate opposed bail on behalf of the State but, on the facts as presented, could not dispute the submissions regarding the marriage and the couple's present circumstances.

The Court's Concern Over Two Decades of Inaction

Justice Rajeev Bharti opened the substantive analysis by recording his disquiet with what the record revealed. A case from 2001 had not reached its logical conclusion even by 2026. The Court described this as “wholly incompatible with the constitutional guarantee of a fair and speedy trial” under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Court observed that the proceedings had remained dormant for years without any meaningful progress, effectively reducing the criminal trial to a mere formality. It invoked the expression “तारीख़ पे तारीख़” — a date after date — and said such a state of affairs is not expected to become the hallmark of the criminal justice delivery system.

The observations are pointed in their institutional direction. The failure here was not simply the applicants' delay in prosecuting their quashing petition. The record shows that after the Section 482 petition was dismissed, no effective proceedings took place for a considerable period. The trial court itself resumed the matter and issued bailable warrants only in May 2026, nearly 19 years after the Section 482 petition was filed and 24 years after the FIR. The Court's disquiet thus extended to the overall state of the proceeding, not merely to the conduct of the parties.

Reliance on Musheer Alam v. State of U.P.

Justice Bharti placed specific reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in Musheer Alam v. The State of U.P. and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 116. The digest does not reproduce the ratio of that decision in detail, but the Court cited it as informing the conclusion that protecting the liberty of the applicants would be expedient in the interest of justice, given the cumulative facts: the applicants' absence of prior criminal record, the filing of the charge-sheet, the undertaking to cooperate in the trial, and the factual developments since 2001.

Conditions Attached to Anticipatory Bail

The Court directed Ajay Kumar @ Chingi and Ram Chandra to surrender before the trial court within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. On their surrender, the trial court was directed to release them on anticipatory bail subject to personal bonds and two sureties each of the same amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Five specific conditions were imposed:

The applicants shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten, or promise any person familiar with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from revealing facts before the Court or to tamper with evidence.
The applicants shall not travel outside India without prior permission from the Court.
The applicants shall not attempt to influence or intimidate any prosecution witness.
The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on all scheduled dates unless specifically exempted from personal appearance.
In the event of any violation of the conditions, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the anticipatory bail.

The Court also permitted the trial court to impose any other reasonable restrictions it might consider appropriate. The order expressly clarified that the observations made while granting anticipatory bail shall not affect the trial judge in forming an independent opinion based on the testimony of witnesses.

Order

The anticipatory bail application, Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 498 of 2026, was allowed by Justice Rajeev Bharti on 14 July 2026. The applicants — Ajay Kumar @ Chingi and Ram Chandra — are required to surrender before the trial court within two weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order, upon which the trial court shall release them on anticipatory bail on the terms and conditions set out in the order.