Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:28000 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41334 of 2024 Applicant :- Zahid Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Pati Tiwari,Deepak Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Anand Pati Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amrit Raj Chaurasia, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records. 2. This is the second bail application seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 1626 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4, 9 of Official Secrets Act and Section 66-D I.T. Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Bualandshahr. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered alleging that a map of cantonment was recovered from the applicant. The first bail application No. 54599 of 2019 filed by the applicant was rejected by means of an order dated 04.02.2021 wherein this Court had directed the trial court to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months. The second bail application has been filed on the ground that the trial could not be concluded within the time granted by this Court and even long thereafter. The State has filed a counter affidavit opposing the bail application. This Court had called for a report from the trial court regarding progress of the trial. The trial court has submitted a report dated 01.02.2025 stating that the charge sheet was submitted on 10.01.2019 and that all seven prosecution witnesses have already been examined and the learned Additional Additional District Government Counsel (Criminal) made an endorsement regarding closure of the prosecution evidence on 21.11.2024. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 12.12.2024. On 18.12.2024, the accused sought adjournment to produce defence evidence but on 02.01.2025, an endorsement was made on his behalf that no defence witness would be produced. The matter is being fixed for hearing submissions since 15.01.2025 but the learned counsel for the applicant-accused himself sought adjournment on 15.01.2025. On 21.01.2025, learned counsel for the accused sought time to file written submissions but again, he sought adjournment on 24.01.2025 and 30.01.2025. 4. It appears that the trial is being delayed because of non- cooperation of the counsel for the applicant. 5. In these circumstances, when the trial is at the stage of hearing final submissions and the learned counsel for the applicant is repetitively seeking adjournment, it would not be proper to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage. 6. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant is rejected. However, it is observed that the trial court shall make every endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously but that would be subject to cooperation of the applicant and his counsel. Order Date:- 27.2.2025 Pradeep/- Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad