The applicant's anticipatory bail application was dismissed for want of prosecution as it had become infructuous due to the efflux of time and absence of counsel from both sides.
Application dismissed for want of prosecution and being infructuous; 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. - 19 of 2020
Applicant :- Vipin Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
List has been revised.
Neither the counsel for the applicant nor the counsel for the informant is present. 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 :- 14.9.2022 Ravi Kant
Digitally signed by RAVI KANT Date: 2022.09.15 09:45:11 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the anticipatory bail application was maintainable given the absence of counsel and efflux of time.
Vipin Kumar
State Of U.P.
2 Others
Krishan Pahal
Ravi Kant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
