Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Heard Sri M.P. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Rajeev Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the informant.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays that the applicant is entitled for bail keeping in view the fact that he has remained in incarceration for almost 15 and 1/2 years and in view of the status of the pendency of the appeal he submits that the bail may be considered on this ground as also on the ground that all those who were main accused have already been acquitted and the said judgment even though under appeal before this court has not yet been reversed. Consequently, keeping in view the ancillary role of the applicant as assigned and the fact that the conviction is based on the same set of evidence there is every likelihood of the appellant of being acquitted and therefore he does not deserve to be continued in detention.
We are not impressed by any of these arguments as the learned counsel for the State and the informant have rightly pointed out that the appellant herein was an absconder for a fairly long time i.e. for almost 6 years that resulted in impeding the trial and for calling of the witnesses and then proceeding whereafter the conviction has been arrived.
It was the appellant who was to blame for this situation and he can not take undue advantage of being an absconder. Keeping in view this conduct of the appellant he is not entitled for bail.
Rejected.
The paper book is prepared. Let the matter come up for hearing before the appropriate bench in it's turn along with the connected matters.
Order Date :- 7.9.2018 Masarrat