Rinkal v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.5417 of 2019 filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was rejected as having become infructuous because the trial in the underlying case had already concluded with a final judgment pronounced on 22.12.2021.
What did the court decide?
The bail application is rejected as it has become infructuous following the final judgment in the trial court.
What the court decided
Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5417 of 2019
Applicant :- Rinkal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Agnihotri,Vijay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
- No one has put in appearance on behalf of the accusedapplicant to press this anticipatory bail application even in revised call. However, Sri S.N. Goswami, learned AGA is present.
- The present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking bail in Case Crime No.405 of 2018, under Sections 377, 323, 506 IPC and Section ¾ POCSO Act, Police Station Sandi, District Hardoi.
- As per the status report dated 4.2.2022 submitted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.15, Hardoi after completion of the trial in Session Trial No.28 of 2019, final judgment was pronounced on 22.12.2021.
- In view of the aforesaid, this bail application has been rendered infructuous. It is accordingly rejected as having
become infructuous.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the anticipatory bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. requires hearing given the completion of trial and final judgment.
Whether the bail application stands infructuous upon conclusion of the trial.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Rinkal
Coram
Dinesh Kumar Singh
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · June
- Registered
- Case no.
- /5417/2019
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court