GULAB Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) N. L. Ganguly, J. This is 3rd bail application. The second bail application was rejected by me on 13-9-93. I had issued the direction that ". . . . I consider it appropriate that a direction be issued to the Sessions Judge before whom the Sessions trial is pending to conclude the trial within six months from the date of filing of certified copy of the order passed today, by the applicant. The Sessions Judge, shall not grant frivolous adjournment -and the prosecution be directed to proceed with the case without seeking any adjournment. Learned A. G. A. is directed to communicate to the court below and D. G. C. (Crl.), Sonbhadra to take steps and see that the trial is concluded within the stipulated time. "

(2.) THE learned counsel for the applicant admittedly had not filed the order immediately after it was passed by the court. A certified copy of the said order was obtained on 28-10-93 which was not sent to the applicant's Pairokar and learned counsel Sri V. C. Katiyar who appears before the court today has shown the certified copy to be present in his file. THEre is a mention that the Hon'ble Court order was communicated in November, 1993 which is mentioned in the list of the documents of the Sessions Trial. THE learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to show that the certified copy of the order passed by me on 13-9-93 was actually produced before the Sessions Judge with any application or he had told that the High Court has issued a positive direction that the case be concluded within six months. It was also not pointed out that the High Court has directed that no frivolous adjourn ment shall be granted to the prosecution for examining the witness.

(3.) WITH these observations, the application is rejected. A copy of the order be given to the A. G. A. within three days. He shall procure the copy from the Crl. Section and communicate the order to the court below for strict compliance of the order. Application rejected. .