IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No.721 of 2006 (Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) Pankaj Purohit ………. Applicant Versus State of Uttaranchal ..…. Respondent Dated: August 23, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Heard Sri Vinod Sharma, Advocate for the revisionist and Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1. By way of this criminal revision, the prayer has been advanced to expunge the remark made by this Court on dated 12.7.2006 in criminal bail application no.347 of 2005, Smt. Jasbeer Kaur and another Vs. State. The said bail application arose out of the criminal case no.193 of 2004 u/s 302, 201/34 IPC, P.S. Laxman Jhula, District Pauri Garhwal. Having heard the learned counsel of the applicant, it appears that on behalf of accused Jasbir Kaur and Harvinder @ Sonu, the first bail application was moved and pending in the court while taking the brief on behalf of these accused persons, Sri Pankaj Purohit moved second bail application, without having knowledge that first bail application was already pending. It has been contended that the learned advocate was mislead by his clients and concealed the fact of pendency of the first bail application before the Court. The bail was granted on dated 28.3.2006 when this concealment was revealed. The Court asked the applicant to produce the applicants before the Court. The applicant strived to comply with the order of the Court. He dropped so many letters to the accused who were granted bail, but they did not turn up. Then the applicant made a statement comprising the Court 2 regarding the efforts, which he made in order to comply with the directions issued to him. This Court was not satisfied and made a remark against the applicant- Pankaj Purohit that he has shirked from his responsibility by making a simple statement that he has already informed the applicants by telephone. Taking notice of the every effort, which the applicant-Sri Pankaj Purohit made for the compliance of order passed by this Court, this Court is of the view that the above remarks made by this Court against the applicant are liable to be expunged. For the reasons as aforesaid, this C482 petition is allowed. The remarks made by this Court against the applicant in the order-dated 12.7.2006 passed by this Court, is hereby expunged. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 23.08.2011 Rajeev Dang