VAIBHAV MAHESHWARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the third bail application moved by the applicant Vaibhav Maheshwari. THIS First Bail Application No. 13234 of 2004 and the Second Bail Application No. 22596 of 2005 were rejected on merit by Hon'ble M. K. Mittal, J., who has since retired.

(2.) HEARD Mr. D. S. Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Sri Rajesh Pathik, the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the applicant, however, submitted that the learned trial court has adopted dilatory tactics in disposing of the application under Section 311, Cr. P.C. It may be mentioned in this regard that the application under Section 311, Cr. P.C. was moved on 26.2.2009 and the trial court directed that the same be put up for disposal on the date already fixed but no proceeding was done on the next date, i.e., 5.3.2009 due to lawyers' strike, consequently, 19.3.2009 was fixed for disposal of the application, which was disposed of on that date. THE trial court rejected the application stating that the application was not filed by any authorised advocate, but however, the applicant and co-accused Nirpendra were permitted to file a fresh application, and accordingly, they moved the second application under Section 311, Cr. P.C. on 28.3.2009, which was directed to be put up on 9.4.2009, being the next date already fixed in the case. THE learned trial court instead of disposing of the application on 9.4.2009, obtained objection of the prosecution and fixed 20.4.2009 for disposal. None appeared for the applicant and the co-accused for pressing the application on 20.4.2009, consequently, 27.5.2009 was fixed, and on that date, the application was partly heard, and 9.6.2009 was fixed for further hearing, but also on 9.6.2009, none appeared for the applicant and the co-accused Nirpendra, to press the application. THE Presiding Officer, then fixed 23.6.2009 for hearing on the application. It is, therefore, clear that the applicant and the co-accused persons avoided hearing on the application moved under Section 311, Cr. P.C. on 20.4.2009 and 9.6.2009. In view of these factual aspects of the matter it cannot be contended that the learned Presiding Officer was in any way responsible for delaying the trial.