Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29034 of 2024 Applicant :- Bablu Alias Satish Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State. Perused the record. Applicant- Bablu Alias Satish Singh who is charge sheeted accused has approached this Court by means of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the charge sheet dated 12.12.2009 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Session Trial No. 296A of 2010 (State Versus Bablu Singh alias Satish Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 129 of 2009 under Sections 302 I.P.C., Police Station- Maniyar, District- Ballia pending in the court of Additional Session Judge IVth Ballia. It is further prayed that during the pendency of the present application before this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the further proceeding of Session Trial No. 296A of 2010 (State Versus Bablu Singh alias Satish Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 129 of 2009 under Sections 302 I.P.C., Police Station- Maniyar, District- Ballia pending in the court of Additional Session Judge IVth Ballia, and/or pass such other and further order as this court may deem fit and proper." At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. raised a preliminary objection by submitting that applicant has approached this Court after expiry of a period of more than 14 years from the date of charge sheet i.e. 12.12.2009. As such, present application is hopelessly barred by delay/laches. However, the laches in filing the present application have not been sufficiently explained. It is then contended by the learned A.G.A. that since applicant was absconding from the proceedings of trial, therefore, Court below segregated the trial of applicant ini exercise of jurisdiction under section 317 (2) Cr.P.C. Co-accused Kamlesh, has already been convicted by Court below vide judgement and order dated 11.3.2016. On the aforesaid premise, the learned A.G.A. submits that no interference is warranted by this Court in present application. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant invited the attention of the Court to the supplementary affidavit filed by him. With reference to above, he submits that the delay in filing present application has been sufficiently explained. Perusal of aforesaid supplementary affidavit will go to show that simply narration of facts has been made but the explanation as to what caused the delay in approaching this Court has not been explained. As such, the delay/laches in filing the present application has not been explained. As the delay/laches in filing the present application remains unexplained up to this stage, present application is liable to be dismissed. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the preliminary objection raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application is clearly borne out from the record and furthermore the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant, with reference to the record at this stage. As such, no good ground exists to entertain the present application. In view of above, this application fails and is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 18.2.2025 Arshad Digitally signed by :- ARSHAD MAHMOOD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad