Court No. - 53
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13993 of 2018 Applicant :- Zubair And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Agarval Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Heard Sri Ankit Agarval, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Kamal Singh Yadav, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants are facing trial in S.T. No.290 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No.405 of 2017 (State Vs. Zubair & Ors.), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, P.S. Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr pending before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Bulandshahr.
The prayer in this application is to set aside the impugned order dated 06.03.2018 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge and sessions Judge by which bail granted to the applicants has been cancelled and non-bailable warrants have been issued.
Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned AGA alongwith Sri Abhinav Tripathi appearing for the State submit that a perusal of the impugned order shows that the applicants have misused the liberty of bail and no interference is called for.
This Court has keenly perused the order impugned dated 06.03.2018 and finds that trial court has recorded a categorical finding that the accused on account of their consistent absence are not permitting the proceedings in the sessions trial to go on. He has also recorded the fact that by an order all the accused were directed to attend trial on 05.03.2018 but the said accused did not appear. The trial court in those circumstances has proceeded to cancel bail and issued non-bailable warrants against the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants has mentioned that the mother of applicant no.1 is old and suffering from various diseases and on that account the applicant could not turn up before the court below. In paragraph 17 it is said that applicant no.2 is a labourer and after he was out on bail pending investigation he went to Jaipur to earn his livelihood and nobody informed the second applicant about the dates fixed in the ongoing trial on account of which he could not appear before the trial court even at the time of framing of charge.
This Court finds the reasons offered by the learned counsel for the applicants for the absence to be utterly unacceptable. The applicants reflect a mind set who do not fear the law at all. No indulgence can be extended to any person who behaves in this manner in the matter of attending solemn proceedings of law. The impugned order is flawless and does not call for any interference.
This application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.
Order Date :- 24.4.2018 Shahroz