No one appeared for the applicant. The Hon'ble Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. as infructuous and for want of prosecution, vacating any interim order.
Application dismissed for want of prosecution and being infructuous; interim order, if any, vacated.
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. - 10226 of 2021
Applicant :- Rahul And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Tripathi,Vinod Kumar Tirpathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
List has been revised.
No one appears on behalf of applicant to press this anticipatory bail application.
Learned A.G.A. for the State is present.
As such, with to efflux of time, the anticipatory bail application seems to have become infructuous.
The same is dismissed for want of prosecution and being infructuous.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 20.10.2022 VPS
Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH SHARMA Date: 2022.10.21 11:00:43 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Rahul And 5 Others
State of U.P.
Krishan Pahal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
