Dismissed

Shashibala and Another v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2019A482/46359/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order rejecting an extension of interim bail. The court held that the applicants violated bail conditions by not appearing before the court below, making the order legal and without infirmity.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed as devoid of merit.

Shashibala and Another Vs State of U.P.and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 46359 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Shashibala And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lalit Singh Tomar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Shri Anurag Dubey, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2 today in the Court, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Anurag Dubey, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 and perused the material available on record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants challenging the order dated 01.11.2019, by which the applicants' application for extending the interim bail has been rejected on account of their non appearance before the court below.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants have been regularly appearing on each and every date but on 01.11.2019, they did not appear before the court below and as such, due to their absence, application for extending the interim bail has been rejected which is bad in the eyes of law.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 has submitted that vide order dated 16.09.2019, the applicants were granted interim bail and on their presence before the court below interim bail was extended however subsequently on 01.11.2019, the date fixed before the court below, the applicants did not appear and moved an application for extending the interim bail. The court below in the absence of accused rightly rejected the prayer for extending the interim bail. The impugned order passed by the court below in the absence of the applicants is just proper and legal and do not call for any interference.

¶10

Having considered the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the applicants have violated the condition of grant of interim bail and has not appeared before the court below as such, the court below has rightly rejected the prayer for extending the interim bail. There

¶11

is absolutely no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order which calls for any interference at this stage.

¶12

The present application under Section 482 is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed .

¶13

Order Date :- 16.12.2019 Zafar

Shashibala and Another v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashibala and Another v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shailendra Singh Yadav and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Samsuddin Siddiqui and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Azam Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Alok Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Veer Pal Singh @ Veer Pratap Vs State of U.P.and Another

Sachin and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another