This order dismisses an anticipatory bail application for lack of prosecution as no appearance was made by the applicant despite multiple adjournments and requests.
Application dismissed for want of prosecution.
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. - 5035 of 2021
Applicant :- Amit Chaubey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Karunesh Pratap Singh 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 S.B. Maurya, learned counsel for the State is present.
Previously on three occasions i.e. on 21.05.2021, 06.07.2021 and 01.09.2021 there was no representation on behalf of the applicant. On 22.07.2021 the matter was adjourned on the request of learned counsel for the applicant. Today also no one appears on behalf of the applicant to press this anticipatory bail application.
The present anticipatory bail application is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Order Date :- 9.12.2021 M. ARIF
(Samit Gopal, J.)
Amit Chaubey
Samit Gopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
