- (1.) This is third bail application on behalf of applicant Anshul Sharma in Case Crime No.682 of 2011, under Sections 364-A/34/120-B I.P.C., P.S. Sector 20 Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
(2.) Heard Sri Atul Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sushil Shukla, learned counsel for complainant and learned A.G.A. on behalf of State. As per prosecution version, a disappearance (gumsudgi) report was lodged by the informant on 22.9.2011 alleging therein that on 21.9.2011, the husband of the informant is said to have left between 6 to 7 p.m. from his office in his Mercedes car driven by him for residence but he did not reach his residence nor he could be contacted over the mobile phones. Thereafter the police in it's effort through surveillance and other methods was able to arrest the accused persons involved in the said crime and converted the missing information into a formal FIR vide Case Crime No. 682 of 2011, under Section 364-A/34/120-B IPC. The report was investigated by the police which revealed that the husband of informant had been kidnapped for ransom.
(3.) The First bail application was dismissed by this Court on 11.12.2014. The second bail application was again moved on behalf of applicant which was also dismissed vide order dated 11.4.2014 by observing the following:- "Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to point out any changed circumstances or any new grounds which were not available at the time of hearing of the first bail application except praying for release of the applicant on parole on account of some arrangement of marriage of sister of applicant which is scheduled to be held on 19.4.2014. This pleading of applicant cannot be said to be a new ground sustaining the second bail application." Sri Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavits and argued that several grounds could not be taken while deciding earlier bail applications. It has further been argued that available evidence is not sufficient to conclude the culpability of applicant. Learned counsel for applicant has also submitted that sufficient time has elapsed and trial has yet not been concluded. Therefore, the trial court has not followed the instructions of this Court dated 11.12.2014 to conclude the trial in expeditious manner.;