G.B. Mathur, Kundan Singh, JJ. - (1.) This application has been moved on 22.2.1995 for recalling our order dated 22.11.1994 by which Criminal Appeal No. 626 of 1979, Niazoo Khan and others v. State was dismissed for want of prosecution. In the affidavit filed along with the application, it is averred that Sri Shamsuddin Ahmad, learned counsel for the appellants stopped coming to the High Court due to illness and thereafter the appellants engaged Sri J.n. Chaturvedi, advocate, for arguing the appeal and entire fee was paid to him. It is averred in paras 6 and 7 of the affidavit that the appellant Mehtab Khan was subsequently informed that the appeal came up for hearing before the Bench of their lordships Mr. Justice J.N. Dubey and Mr. Justice M.P. Kenniya on 28.1.1992, who after hearing arguments reserved judgement but the judgement was never pronounced. It is further averred in paras 8 and 9 of the affidavit that subsequently the appellant Mehtab Khan came to know of an order passed by a learned Single Judge on 18.5.1994 and by the Division Bench on 22.11.1994 dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution. It is averred in paras Nos. 9 ad 13 of the affidavit that the appellant filed Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4013/1994 in the Supreme Court against the order dated 22.11.1994 and the aforesaid Special Leave petition was allowed to be withdrawn on the statement of the counsel by the order dated 10.3.1995. It is further averred in para 16 of the affidavit that the appellants' counsel Sri. J.N. Chaturvedi advocate neither appeared before the court when the appeal was called out for hearing on 22.11.1994 nor he gave information about the order to the appellants. We have heard Sri D.N. Misra, who has filed the application at considerable length. The order sheet which is now available on the record shows that the office put up a report that the lower court was not traceable in the criminal section and the same was misplaced while it was sent to Court on the date when the appeal was listed for hearing. Thereafter a learned Single Judge passed an order on 18.5.1994 directing the office to trace out the record. An order for listing the appeal before the appropriate court was passed on 29.7.1994. The matter was again placed before a learned Single Judge on 10.8.1994 who directed that the appeal be listed for hearing before the appropriate Division Bench on 5.9.1994 as a copy of the paper book had been placed on record and Hon'ble the Chief Justice be informed about the loss of the record of the appeal. The appeal was then listed for hearing before a Division Bench on 5.9.1994 when the same was adjourned as Sri Shamsuddin Ahmad and R.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants had sent illness slips. The order sheet further shows that the appeal was listed on 12.9.1994 when it was passed over for the day. On 20.9.1994 the appeal was again adjourned as the learned counsel for the appellants had sent illness slips. Then the appeal was listed on 30.9.1994 when it could not be taken up for hearing on account of illness slip of Sri. R.L. Yadav, advocate. On two subsequent dates, namely on 27.10.94 and 8.11.1994 the appeal had to be adjourned again on account of the illness slip of Sri R.L. Yadav, advocate. However, on the second date a specific order was passed that the appeal was being adjourned for the last time and shall not be adjourned on the next date. The office was directed to list the appeal peremptorily on 22.11.1994. On 22.11.1994 also no one appeared and then in view of the earlier order dated 8.11.1994 the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. The copy of the cause list shows that names of all the four counsels namely Sri Yder Abbas, J.N. Chaturvedi, R.L. Yadav and Shamsuddin Ahmad were shown in the cause list. In the affidavit filed along with the application no explanation at all has been given as to why Sri R.L.Yadav and Hyder Abbas did not appear when the case was called out for hearing. In para 16 of the affidavit, it is stated that Sri J.N. Chaturvedi neither appeared before the Court nor gave information about the order dated 2.11.1994 to the appellant. However, we find on record an application/letter which was addressed by Sri J.N. Chaturvedi to the Registrar of the High Court stating that an application for certified copy of the judgement and order dated 22.11.1994 was moved on 23.11.1994 vide SS No. 35200 (urgent) and a request was made that the certified copy may be supplied to the counsel so that the appellant may approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The fact that the application for certified copy of the judgement and order dated 22.11.1994 was moved on the very next date i.e. 23.11.1994 clearly shows that proceedings were being watched from out side the court and the counsel for the appellants, in spite of having full knowledge of the listing of the appeal, did not appear in court to argue the same. Between 5.2.1994 and 22.11.1994 the appeal was listed for hearing before the Division Bench on seven different dates and on 8.11.1994 a specific order was passed that the appeal will be listed peremptorily on 22.11.1994 and would not be adjourned on that date. It may also be noticed that in the affidavit no date has been given as to when the affidavit no date has been given as to when the appellant came to know of the dismissal of the appeal. However, the fact that the certified copy of the order was applied on the very next date and that within 17 days of the passing of the order a special leave petition was filed in the Supreme Court clearly shows that the proceedings were being carefully watched from behind and the absence of the learned Counsel was deliberate. Thus, in our opinion, there is absolutely no ground for recalling the order dated 22.11.1994. The question which still required consideration is whether an accused who has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and who has preferred an appeal in the High Court should be given a chance of hearing or not? The consequences of dismissal of the appeal are quite serious. Though the appellants have not made out any case for recalling order dated 22.11.1994 on merits, however, in the interest of justice and in order go give a hearing to the appellants, we recall that part of the order dated 22.11.1994 by which the appeal has been dismissed for want of prosecution. The appellants have also made a prayer that they may be released on bail. Since we have restored the appeal and we intend to commence the hearing thereof immediately, we see no reason to grant bail to the appellants. The prayer made by the appellants for granting them bail is accordingly rejected. Appeal Rejected.;