The Allahabad High Court has deprecated the practice of counsel insisting on arguing for bail when a case is ready to be heard on its merits [Umesh Gosai v. State of UP]. .A division bench of Justices Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Ajai Tyagi said that such a practice will add to pendency of cases before the High Court. "One more aspect which requires to be mentioned in this appeal is that despite the fact that the appeal is listed for hearing, learned counsel do not permit the Court to argue the appeal and they claim only bail........This tendency of filing bail application subsequently despite the fact that earlier orders for prepare all the paper book, this would only add to the pendency as after accused are enlarged on bail," the Court said.The Court took note of the data which reflected that matters from 1990 where accused were on bail, remained pending. "The pendency of this bail application adds to the list of pending bail application though this is subsequent bail application for enlargement on bail where no new grounds are alleged except period of incarceration", the bench recorded. .While the court dismissed the bail plea which lacked any new grounds, it was stated that the main appeal was ready for final disposal but could not be taken up due to the insistence on the bail application being heard. The bench highlighted that such conduct had also been deprecated by the Supreme Court in Hariom v State Of UP where bail was refused, particularly because the "appeals were ripe for hearing"..In the case at hand, the appellant had moved the fourth bail application on the ground of extended period of incarceration. Despite the paper-book being ready, the appellant's counsel was not ready to argue the main matter.The Court took note of the fact that the appellant was denied bail by a reasoned order, and was even refused bail during trial considering the seriousness of the offence..Considering this, the Court said it could not grant bail at this juncture since this was a subsequent bail application.It then listed the main appeal for hearing on August 17, 2022 while dismissing the bail plea. .The appellant was represented by Advocates Ram Suphal Shukla, Ajay Kumar Nath and Deena Nath while the State was represented by Advocate Narendra Singh..[Read Order]
The Allahabad High Court has deprecated the practice of counsel insisting on arguing for bail when a case is ready to be heard on its merits [Umesh Gosai v. State of UP]. .A division bench of Justices Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Ajai Tyagi said that such a practice will add to pendency of cases before the High Court. "One more aspect which requires to be mentioned in this appeal is that despite the fact that the appeal is listed for hearing, learned counsel do not permit the Court to argue the appeal and they claim only bail........This tendency of filing bail application subsequently despite the fact that earlier orders for prepare all the paper book, this would only add to the pendency as after accused are enlarged on bail," the Court said.The Court took note of the data which reflected that matters from 1990 where accused were on bail, remained pending. "The pendency of this bail application adds to the list of pending bail application though this is subsequent bail application for enlargement on bail where no new grounds are alleged except period of incarceration", the bench recorded. .While the court dismissed the bail plea which lacked any new grounds, it was stated that the main appeal was ready for final disposal but could not be taken up due to the insistence on the bail application being heard. The bench highlighted that such conduct had also been deprecated by the Supreme Court in Hariom v State Of UP where bail was refused, particularly because the "appeals were ripe for hearing"..In the case at hand, the appellant had moved the fourth bail application on the ground of extended period of incarceration. Despite the paper-book being ready, the appellant's counsel was not ready to argue the main matter.The Court took note of the fact that the appellant was denied bail by a reasoned order, and was even refused bail during trial considering the seriousness of the offence..Considering this, the Court said it could not grant bail at this juncture since this was a subsequent bail application.It then listed the main appeal for hearing on August 17, 2022 while dismissing the bail plea. .The appellant was represented by Advocates Ram Suphal Shukla, Ajay Kumar Nath and Deena Nath while the State was represented by Advocate Narendra Singh..[Read Order]
