Vadruddin vs State Of U.P.
2016 Latest Caselaw 3166 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 45
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31605 of 2015
 

 
Applicant :- Vadruddin
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Snehil Srivasatava,Chandra Prakash Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

The learned counsel for the applicant was granted two weeks time for filing rejoinder affidavit.  The accused is in Jail since 25.12.2014. 

The learned counsel for the applicant is not willing to argue the matter today.  He wants to pass over the matter today as he has not prepared the rejoinder affidavit.

List the matter after an application is filed before the office that he has prepared his rejoinder affidavit.

This order may be communicated to the accused who is in Jail showing that his counsel is not conducting the matter.

After the order is passed, the learned counsel for the applicant  is ready to argue the matter on merits.

Let the matter come up after lunch.

Order Date :- 27.5.2016

IB

Further order after lunch

The learned counsel for the accused argued on merits. The affidavit has already been filed on the ground of parity.  He may claim parity before the Special Judge dealing with the case under the N.D.P.S. Act.  According to him, he claims parity before the trial court within a period of one week from today, which may be decided as expeditiously as possible.

After the aforesaid order is passed, he requested that this matter be kept after vacation and may be passed over as he may not be able to get bail before the trial Court.

The matter is passed over.

List in the next cause list.

Order Date :- 27.5.2016

IB