The High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC as infructuous and for want of prosecution due to the applicant's absence in the revised call.
Anticipatory bail application dismissed; interim order 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. - 1431 of 2021
Applicant :- Prashant @ Prashant Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anothers Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Shankar,Ashish Kaushik Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
None is present on behalf of the applicant/s to press the application even in the revised call. Learned A.G.A. for the State is present.
As such, with the 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 :- 16.9.2022 Shalini
Digitally signed by SHALINI JAISWAL Date: 2022.09.17 11:03:41 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the anticipatory bail application is maintainable given the lack of presence and time lapse.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Prashant @ Prashant Kumar
Krishan Pahal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
