JUDGMENT :

By the Court.-At the outset, Shri Ishan Baghel holding brief of Shri I.B. Singh, Senior Advocate, for the appellants stated that short term applications have been filed on behalf of the appellants in both the appeals which are pending and the same may be disposed of by this Court. He submits that both the appellants, who are sons of co-accused Mool Chandra, are in jail for the last 17 years, hence he prays that they may be released on parole/short term bail on the ground that their father, Mool Chandra (co-accused) has died on 7.1.2022 and there is no one to take care of their family members.

2. Taking into consideration the fact that paper book is ready; matter is ripe for hearing; the above-captioned appeals are listed for final hearing today; the convicts/appellants are in jail for the last 17 years, we gave an option to Shri Ishan Baghel, holding brief of Shri I.B. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, to argue the appeals finally, Shri Ishan Baghel, learned Counsel showed reluctance and prays for adjournment with a plea that he has no power in the instant appeal.

3. It transpires from the order-sheet of the case that the first application for bail filed by the appellants was rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court comprising Hon'ble Shiva Kirti Singh, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Arora, J. (as they then were) vide order dated 15.4.2013. After that, the aforesaid appeals were listed on several dates but adjourned either on the request of learned Counsel for the appellants or on his out of station slip.

4. It also transpires that on 13.1.2022, when the above-captioned appeals were listed for final hearing, this Court gave an option to Ms. Reena Rajesh, learned Counsel who was holding brief of Sri I.B. Singh, Senior Advocate, to argue the appeal finally, she showed reluctance and stated that her Senior Counsel, Shri I.B. Singh, who was out of station, would argue the appeal and prayed that the matter be listed in the next week for final hearing. Appreciating the request of Ms. Reena Rajesh, learned Counsel, this Court posted the matter for final hearing on 20.1.2022. On 20.1.2022, on the request of learned Ms. Reena Rajesh, learned Counsel, the case was again adjourned and the matter was posted for 22.2.2022. On 22.2.2022, Shri Ishan Baghel, learned Counsel holding brief of Shri I.B. Singh had appeared and prayed for adjournment in order to enable him to prepare the case for final hearing. Appreciating this request of Shri Ishan Baghel, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, the matter was posted for final hearing in the week commencing 7.3.2022. After that, the case has been listed for today i.e. on 7.3.2022.

5. Today, when the case was called out, Shri Ishan Baghel, learned Counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the appellants and instead of arguing the appeal finally, presses the short term bail/parole and so far as arguing the appeal finally is concerned, he states that he has no power on behalf of the appellants to argue the appeals finally.

6. It is noteworthy to mention here that Ms. Reena Rajesh holding brief of Mr. I.B. Singh, Senior Advocate, who is also present with Mr. Ishan Baghel today, had also appeared in the appeal on previous occasion i.e. on 13.1.2022 and pressed the short term/parole application on behalf of the appellants and further sought adjournment with a plea that the matter would be argued by Sri I.B. Singh, Senior Advocate, who was abroad at the time.

7. Considering the aforesaid, this Court finds the conduct of Mr. Ishan Baghel and Ms. Reena Rajesh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants on different dates cannot be appreciated by the Court as all the attempt is being made to get the appellants somehow short term bail/parole even though the earlier bail applications of the appellants have been rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench and final hearing of the appeals has been avoided even knowing the fact that the above-captioned appeals have been listed