JUDGMENT : In Re: Criminal Misc. IV Bail Application No.26 of 2022 1. A projection is made in the country that bail application of accused-persons who were in jail for more than 10 years are not being listed and not being heard in the High Court of Allahabad. 2. With lot of pain, we mention here that this is the fourth Bail application filed by the accused. The third bail application was filed after the paper book was ready. The paper book is prepared way back in the year 2018. The office report dated 11.7.2018 shows that the paper book has been prepared as per order of the Court. The case was put up for hearing. On 10.1.2020 on the request of counsel for appellants, matter was adjourned. On 29.1.2020, once again matter was adjourned because of the illness slip of counsel for appellants, thereafter, the third bail application was rejected and order application reads as follows:- "Put up for hearing in the additional cause list on 25.2.2020. This order has been passed in the presence of Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA." 3. Thereafter, again on 25.2.2020, much after the pandemic set into this country, the appellants counsels have absented themselves and Shri Harish Chandra Tiwari was appointed as amicus curie. 4. Thereafter, once again Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh has filed this bail application. 5. We are really at pains to convey to Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh that he may point out any single ground except incarceration and he has argued the bail application as he is arguing the main matter, namely, that one of the eye witnesses has not been examined. There is general rule assigned of firing. It was a petty offence. It is further submitted that only interested witnesses have been examined and it is lastly pointed out that for a period of 15 years the accused are in jail. 6. We note that not a single application was filed for getting the matter heard. 7. Today, though the matter is in the caption of cases in which appellants are in jail for more than 10 years, learned counsel for appellants is reluctant to argue the main matter, he has substituted five counsels and, thereafter, has appeared for both the accused. 8. 7. Today, though the matter is in the caption of cases in which appellants are in jail for more than 10 years, learned counsel for appellants is reluctant to argue the main matter, he has substituted five counsels and, thereafter, has appeared for both the accused. 8. One more aspect which requires to be mentioned in this appeal is that despite the fact that the appeal is listed for hearing, learned counsel does not permit the Court to decide the appeal and they claim only to argue bail application. 9. A situation would arise that the judgment of Saudan Singh (supra) is placed press into service in all the matters and the learned Advocate refuses to argue main matter though the paper book is ready. A latter judgment of the Apex Court in Hariom v State of UP, Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4545 of 2022 decided on 18.7.2022 will not permit us to grant bail at this juncture as this is the subsequent bail application. This tendency of filing bail application subsequently despite the fact that earlier orders for prepare all the paper book, this would only add to the pendency as after accused are enlarged on bail. Counsel are reluctant to argue the matters and statistical data of Allahabad High Court shows that matters of the year 1990 are pending where the accused are on bail, similar would become the situation in latter part if such pendency is not sough out, the pendency would enough come down. In this case counsel was requested to argue the matter even he was convey that this Court may settle with costs as no new grounds are urged but in consisted that judgment of Sudan Singh (supra) be pressed into service and his accused should be enlarged on bail. We deprecate this practice which is deprecated by the Apex Court in Hariom (supra). 10. The only change in the circumstance is change of learned Advocate and is only wanting to argue for enlargement bail and press the application for enlargement on bail on the basis of the judgment of Sudan Singh (supra). 11. In our case, learned counsel for accused after getting the bail application rejected time and again has filed this bail application, therefore, the judgment in Sudan Singh (supra) cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case. 11. In our case, learned counsel for accused after getting the bail application rejected time and again has filed this bail application, therefore, the judgment in Sudan Singh (supra) cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case. A group of matters cannot be made applicable in the facts of the case. 12. The pendency of this bail application adds to the list of pending bail application though this is subsequent bail application for enlargement on bail where no new grounds are alleged except period of incarceration. 13. The main matter could have been heard on merits today itself but the over insistence of counsel to argue the subsequent bail application shows that the counsel is only wanting to argue on bail. 14. However, learned counsel insisted that we should hear the bail application on merits. The First bail application was rejected on merits holding that there are litigations going on and the appellants had fired gunshot on the deceased and two other persons were injured equally seriously however, accused Lakhanshah was released on bail. 15. The matter is ready for final disposal despite that the counsels in these matters are not ready to make their submissions on merits assailing the conviction but instead are insisting on hearing application for enlargement on accused on bail. 16. We have no other option but to dismiss this application, we are supported our view by subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in Lav Parasher @ Chinu v. State of U.P. in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.1891 of 2022 decided on 17.05.2022 decided by larger bench, where this practice of learned Advocates only insisting for getting the bail application heard has been deprecated as follows:- "In the normal course, we would have granted the relief of bail, especially, after the petitioner has undergone a sentence of 12 years. In the facts and circumstances of the case, where the petitioner has not shown interest in arguing the appeal, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the High Court. However, taking into account the fact that the petitioner has undergone incarceration for more than 12 years, the High Court is requested to dispose of the appeal expeditiously not later than a period of 3 months from today. However, taking into account the fact that the petitioner has undergone incarceration for more than 12 years, the High Court is requested to dispose of the appeal expeditiously not later than a period of 3 months from today. In case, the appeal is not disposed of within the said period, liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his application for bail." 17. The application for enlargement of the accused on being dismissed bail, this appeal requires to be listed on 17th of August, 2022 for final hearing before the Court taking up such matters.