The applicant withdrew the bail application; the court dismissed the same as withdrawn upon raising an objection by the informant's counsel regarding the applicant's counsel's authority to appear.
Application dismissed as withdrawn.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33562 of 2018
Applicant :- Sanawwar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Shahnawaz Shah Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Avnish Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
It is pointed out by Sri Avnish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant that Sri Syed Shahnawaz Shah had appeared on behalf of the respondent No.3 (informant) in writ petition filed by co-accused Mazid and therefore he has no authority under the Advocates' Act to appear on behalf of the accused-applicant in the same crime number.
In view of the objection raised by the learned counsel for the informant, Sri Syed Shahnawaz Shah states that he does not want to press the instant bail application.
The instant bail applicant is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn.
Free copy of the bail rejection order may be returned back to the learned counsel for the applicant after keeping photostat copy of the same on record.
Order Date :- 19.9.2018 Vikas
Sanawwar
State Of U.P.
Rajul Bhargava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
