BARKAT ALI ZAIDI, J. This is a second bail application. The earlier bail application was rejected by order dated 25. 4. 2008, copy whereof is Annexure-1 to this order 2. The facts of the case can be gath ered from earlier order and need not be repeated. 3. Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, Advo cate for the applicant and Sri K. N. Bajpai, Addl. Government Advocate for the State. 4. The ground now taken for grant ing of bail, is the provision contained in sub-section (6) of section 437 Criminal Pro cedure Code, which is as follows:- "437 (6) If, in any case triable by a Magis trate, the trial of a person accused of any non-bailable offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the said pe riod, be released on bail to the sat isfaction of the Magistrate, unless for reasons to be recorded in writ ing, the Magistrate otherwise di rects. " 5. The Magistrate while rejecting the bail, had mentioned that the charge-sheet of co-accused Dhirendra Singh in the case was filed subsequently, and the charge against him is yet to be framed, and since, all the accused have to be tried together, the trial of the accused has not yet con cluded. It will, thus appear that the Magistrate has given a valid and sufficient rea son, why the trial could not be concluded, within 60 days. 6. No case for release under section 437 (6) Criminal Procedure Code is made out. 7. The learned Counsel for the appli cant has referred to the case of Ram Copal Pathak v. State of U. P. , 2008 (60) ACC 862 (SC) in which bail was granted. He insisted that reference be made in the order, to the said case, and this is why the case law is being mentioned. The facts of each case are different, and this is not a matter in which the case law is rele vant, because no legal issue is involved. The tendency to refer to un-necessary case law, which has no bearing on the facts of the case, needs to be deprecated. 8. Application rejected. .