JUDGMENT Mr. A.B. Srivastava, J. - Appellant Hasan Abbas, who along with nine other accused persons is standing trial for offences under Section 147/148/ 302/307/452/504/506 I.P.C. before the Sessions Judge, Moradabad has applied for being released on bail. 2. The occurrence in this case took place on 13.5.1990. The Sessions Trial No. 498 of 1990 was committed to the Court of Sessions on 25.7.1990. This bail application was initially moved on 12.3.1991 inter alia on the ground that it has not been specified in the F.I.R. that the shot fired by the applicant hit the victim, his case is similar to the two accused who have been granted bail in this case, the F.I.R. was delayed and there are no chances of the applicant absconding or tempering with witnesses. During the course of arguments, however, emphasis was laid on the point of delay in trial before the Sessions Judge. 3. On behalf of the first informant a counter and a supplementary counter affidavit have been filed with copies of order sheet and other documents from the record of the trial concerned. It has been vehemently denied in the counter affidavit that any delay has been caused in the trial at the instance of the prosecution or due to Court, rather the accused them selves on several dates stalled the proceedings. 4. The trial relates to an incident of double murder in broad day light in which two brothers Anwar All and a practising Advocate Mohsin Ali, were done to death and a few persons including a minor girl were injured. 5. Barring two accused persons, to whom bail was granted and who had no overt-act assigned in this incident, the rest of the accused are in jail custody. 6. The contention that there has been delay in the trial hence the accused is entitled to bail is not made out. Although the applicant did not choose to support his contention in this regard by any relevant material, the copy of order-sheet filed by other side shows that neither the prosecution nor the Court at any stage can be accused of laches or apathy in proceeding with the trial. Although the applicant did not choose to support his contention in this regard by any relevant material, the copy of order-sheet filed by other side shows that neither the prosecution nor the Court at any stage can be accused of laches or apathy in proceeding with the trial. In fact it were the accused persons who from the very beginning tried to proceed in a leisurely manner, initially by not engaging their own Counsel and not even acceding to appointment of Counsel at State expense, and subsequently at the stage of evidence seeking adjournments and often coming with prayer of recall of witnesses. In fact, during argument on behalf of the applicant the Presiding Judge was criticised for being a bit too hasty in proceeding with evidence. Obviously, on these count it does not lie in the mouth of the applicant to say that his right to speedy trial has been denied and he should be granted bail. 7. As to adjournment of the trial on account of frequent lawyers' strike and consequent breakdown of the Court work, the plea of the learned Counsel for accused that such strikes were not the creation of the accused, no doubt is correct, but at the same time it can also not be taken as laches or negligence on the part of the State or the Court so as to entitle the accused to bail. The plea that if in such a situation the State, or the Courts being an agency of State, do not take recourse to use of force to break the strike, it would amount to connivance in delaying the trial though apparently lucrative, is neither practicable nor sustainable. In case bail is granted, or prosecutions quashed on account of such facts, it would instead of curbing go to encourage such tendency. The plea of the applicant for bail on account of delay in trial has thus to fail. 8. On merits it would be found that the accused has been sent up for a drastically crime of a double murder which was committed in broad day light and two persons including a practising Advocate were done to death. Specific role of shooting deceased Mohsin has been assigned to the applicant was armed with a fire arm. 9. 8. On merits it would be found that the accused has been sent up for a drastically crime of a double murder which was committed in broad day light and two persons including a practising Advocate were done to death. Specific role of shooting deceased Mohsin has been assigned to the applicant was armed with a fire arm. 9. The allegations in the counter affidavit are also to effect that the accused persons during the period of their hiding after the incident also threatened the witnesses. No case for bail to the applicant is thus made out. His application is hereby rejected.