2025:UHC:10365 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS SABA/52/2025 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Bilal Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Present applicant Abdul Shami, S/o Mohd. Irfan is praying for anticipatory bail in reference to FIR dated 12.06.2016 bearing FIR/Case Crime No. 178 of 2016, registered at P.S. Manglaur District Haridawr wherein as many as 23 persons were implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 333, 336, 353, 504, 436, 506, 307 IPC read with Section 3 and 5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Under Section 31(B) of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act. 4. The matter was listed yesterday in order to enable the State Counsel to get status of the trial. On instructions, learned State Counsel apprise to this Court that the charges have been framed on 17.04.2025 and on an administrative side certain records of the Trial Court have also been placed before this Court and I perused the same. In this case, the Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Roorkee Haridwar took cognizance on the charge sheet on 17.06.2017 in which total 58 persons have been charge sheeted. 5. It is very strange that the Trial Court took cognizance on 17.06.2017 but almost after more than seven and half years charges have been framed on 17.04.2025. 6. For the purposes of assistance, the A.D.G.C. also join the proceedings through V.C. who apprise to this Court that due to non appearance of the accused/persons 2025:UHC:10365 against whom charge sheet has been filed, the charges could not be framed earlier. 7. Be that as it may, it is very surprising that after more than seven and half years charges have been framed. I also perused the FIR and the allegations appear to be very serious in nature which are now the subject matter of the trial. 8. Mr. Alok Pundir, A.D.G.C. submits that since the trial has been commenced and charges have been framed, therefore, trial can be expedited within six months. 9. It is also reveal from the order of Ist Addl. Session Judge, Roorkee dated 26.08.2025 that the Session Trial No. 59 of 2025 is also clubbed with the Session Trial No. 48 of 2025. In such view of the matter the Trial Court is directed to expedite the session trial of S.T. No. 48 of 2024 and S.T. No. 59 of 2025 positively within six months. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the concerned court is directed to expedite the session trial therefore in such an eventuality, anticipatory bail may be granted to the applicant. 11. The submission of Mr. Bilal Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant is thoroughly misconceived and praying for anticipatory bail that too after more than seven and half years of FIR itself reveals that the present applicant is also responsible for delaying the trial 12. In such view of the matter, this instant anticipatory bail application is dismissed. It is made clear that the trial court will proceed with the trial on day to day hearing basis without granting any unnecessary adjournment. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 20.11.2025 Parul 2025:UHC:10365