HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Third Bail Application No.53 of 2024 Deepak @ Deepu ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Siddharth Bisht, A.G.A. for the State. Mr. Rajendra Singh Azad, Advocate for the informant. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant is in judicial custody in Sessions Trial No. 99 of 2020, State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu & others, in Case Crime/FIR No. 521 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 504 & 506 IPC, Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. This is third bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was allowed on 06.04.2021. It so happened that subsequently on an application for cancellation of the bail, the bail granted to the applicant was rejected on 29.04.2022. Thereafter, the applicant filed second bail application which was also rejected on 03.03.2023 on merits. 2 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is in custody for a long. After his bail rejection, only PW1 and PW2 have been examined on initial dates when their examination-in-chief was recorded, adjournment was sought by the applicant, but soon thereafter, when they appeared, they were cross examined. 5. Learned counsel for the informant would submit that on the dates when the witnesses appeared, the applicant had taken adjournments. 6. Learned State counsel would submit that the delay in trial is also attributed to the applicant because he has sought adjournments. 7. The applicant has also been granted bail. His bail application was cancelled by the Court. His second bail application has already been rejected. Thereafter, when PW1 appeared, admittedly, the applicant sought adjournment. 8. The Court wanted to ask as to why it was taken? Learned counsel for the applicant is not in a position to tell the Court. 9. Not only this, when PW2 appeared and his examination-in-chief was recorded, admittedly, on that date, the applicant took adjournment. 3 10. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 11. The bail application is rejected. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 25.02.2025 Jitendra