PRASHANT KUMAR UMRAO Vs. STATE & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The third respondent had approached this court for certain reliefs vis-à-vis the case arising out of FIR No.110/2016 of Police Station Vasant Kunj North, involving offences punishable under Sections 124-A/120-B/34/147/149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) by Writ Petition (Crl.) No.558/2016. A learned Single Judge of this court, by order dated 02.03.2016, admitted the said party to interim bail, subject to certain conditions. Three petitions came to be filed in the wake of the said order, including the present petition, the other being Crl.M.C.1094/2016 and Crl.M.C.1095/2016, the first said petition also being by the same petitioner at hand, the second said petition being of Vineet Jindal. By Crl.M.C.1094/2016 and Crl.M.C.1095/2016, the prayer made was for the interim bail granted to the third respondent by the aforementioned order to be cancelled. The said two other petitions were dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this court by a common order dated 11.08.2016.

(2.) The petition at hand praying for initiation of action under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) against second and third respondents, however, has remained pending, the contentions for the aforementioned prayer having arisen out of the same proceedings as aforesaid.

(3.) The matter was adjourned on the last date of hearing on the request of the counsel for the petitioner, he having pleaded personal difficulty. When the matter is taken up today, a proxy appears with similar request on behalf of the counsel. There is no indefinite right to adjournments, just for the asking. The matters cannot be kept pending at the choice, whims or caprice of the parties. There is no good reason why counsel should not appear and assist.