Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 235 (UTT)

ABID v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2015-05-14

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. The applicant before this Court is an accused in Case Crime No. 466 of 2010, which has been registered under Sections 147/148/149/302/34 of I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar. 2. This is the third bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the accused/applicant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 15.04.2013 and the second bail application was rejected on 02.07.2014. 3. The applicant harps on an observation made by this Court, while rejecting the first bail application, vide order dated 15.04.2013. This Court, while rejecting the first bail application, passed following order:- “Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Manish Arora and Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocates for the applicant. Mr. Hari Om Bhakuni, Brief Holder for the State. Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, Senior Advocate assisted by Mohd. Safdar, Advocate for the complainant. Mr. Hari Om Bhakuni, learned Brief Holder has shown the report dated 18.12.2010, submitted by Ballistic Expert / Forensic Science Laboratory Uttarakhand. Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Manish Arora and Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocates for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this application at this stage. Bail Application No. 731 of 2012 is dismissed as withdrawn. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and not to grant any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.” 4. On the earlier occasion, time was granted to the complainant to produce the certified copy of the order-sheets of the trial court, which have been placed today before the Court and has been perused by this Court. From the perusal of the order-sheets it is clear that the delay in the proceeding, if any, has been caused by seeking adjournment on behalf of the prosecution as well as the defence. This is a very sorry state of affairs that the proceeding before the trial court had not been following the orders of this Court, as directed by this court vide order dated 15.04.2013. However, this may not a ground for the applicant to enlarge on bail. 5. Accordingly, the third bail application is also rejected. However, the trial court is hereby directed to comply with the order of this Court and expedite the matter without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.