Dismissed
Kanhaiya Lal v. State of U.P.
Allahabad HCBAIL/38744/2017
Case brief
AI extract
What is this about?
Court dismissed a bail application as infructuous due to the efflux of time and the non-appearance of parties to press it.
What the court decided
AI extract
¶1
Court No. - 34
¶2
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38744 of 2017
¶3
Applicant :- Kanhaiya Lal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Kumar Pandey,Akhilesh Srivastava,Saksham Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
¶4
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
¶5
- This is a bail application pending since 2017. Called in revise. None appeared to press it. Learned A.G.A. is present for State. In the circumstances, I myself have perused the record.
¶6
- It appears that either trial has concluded or applicant has lost interest for any other reason and that's why none is present to press it. Therefore, by efflux of time, this application has rendered infructuous.
¶7
- Dismissed accordingly.
¶8
Order Date :- 12.7.2019 Manish Himwan
Parties & counsel
AI extract
- applicant
Kanhaiya Lal
Coram
AI extract
Sudhir Agarwal
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · July
- Registered
- Case no.
- BAIL/38744/2017
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court