YAMIN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal was taken up yesterday for consideration of bail prayer. Learned counsel for the appellants Sri Rajeev Gupta started his arguments and he was heard on the bail application on merits also. When the Court opened its mind and tried to dictate the order Sri Rajeev Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants sensing that the bail prayer being refused he started saying that he may be given time to prepare the file. That prayer of the learned counsel for the appellants was accepted and after sometime his bail application was again taken up. At that time learned counsel has stated that he has not prepared the file and requested the Court for summoning the original records or to give him time to file the documents. At the beginning of the arguments the learned counsel did not say that he has not prepared the case and the original record will be required for disposal of the bail application. He also said that the bail prayer cannot be decided on the basis of the judgment delivered by trial court and as such the record is to be called for. He did not permit the Court to work and stalled the proceedings of the Court and I have to rise from the Court. After lunch the learned counsel for the appellants again started to raise his contention before this Court even in spite of the fact that no fresh work is to be taken after lunch and only hearing cases is to be taken up. Learned counsel for the appellants was told that his case has already been fixed for tomorrow and he should appear before the Court tomorrow. But he insisted that he should be heard. He continued to make the prayer that it has been practise of this Court that the original record of the case is called and only then the prayer for bail is to be disposed of. He further argued that he never knew the procedure of this Court that the bail prayer will be disposed of without the record. He also made a prayer for time to contact his client so that he may be informed to arrange some other senior counsel to argue and that this case may be released by this Court. He continued to argue. During this period I signed some of the orders which were dictated by me in the morning and also passed orders in two Criminal Appeals which were listed for hearing. When the learned counsel for the appellants continued to disrupt the working of the Court I had to rise again.

(2.) Today when this appeal was taken up the learned counsel for the appellants argued that disposal of bail prayer be taken up after ten days and no argument is possible unless the record is summoned. He stated that it started practise in 1985 and came to know that appeals of the year 1979 were being heard in that year and that Criminal Appeals of 1979 are continued to be heard even today. According to the learned counsel an appeal which is filed today will be taken up after 150 years for hearing and there is no ground that all the appellants be kept in jail during the hearing of the appeal. He further argued that all the persons of the family have been falsely implicated. He also argued that the appellants had remained in jail for a period of one year. He further argued that a case which is listed for admission cannot be kept as part heard and he has cited one instance in the affidavit filed today i.e. with respect to Manoj Singh Vs. State C.M. W.P. No. 1695 (Tax) of 1993, which is still pending before this Court. According to the learned counsel this case was marked as part heard at the admission stage and in special leave petition Honourable Supreme Court remanded the matter with the direction that the petition cannot be marked as part heard at the admission stage.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State has argued that the bail applications are generally disposed of on the basis of the judgment delivered by the trial court and if the Court wants certain other facts to be looked into then only the record of the trial court is summoned.