This order deals with an anticipatory bail application where the applicant failed to appear despite listing dates. The court dismissed the application for want of prosecution.
Application dismissed for want of prosecution as applicant did not appear and no representation was made.
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. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10574 of 2021
Applicant :- Pramod Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Matter taken up in the revised list. No one appears on behalf of the applicant to press this anticipatory bail application.
Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State is present.
The matter was previously listed on 21.6.2021 and there was no representation on behalf of the applicant. Then the matter was listed on 11.11.2021 and the same was adjourned on the prayer on behalf of the applicant.
The present anticipatory bail application is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Order Date :- 4.12.2021 M. ARIF
(Samit Gopal, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to reject the anticipatory bail application for want of prosecution?
Whether application remains pending due to absence of appearance?
Pramod Yadav
Samit Gopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
