Kamal v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by Kamal under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It was found infructuous due to lack of prosecution following a previous missed hearing, vacating any interim order.
What did the court decide?
Anticipatory bail application dismissed for want of prosecution; interim order, if any, vacated.
What the court decided
Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3075 of 2021
Applicant :- Kamal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Lal Chandra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Today, none is present to press this application even in the revised call. Learned A.G.A. for the State is present.
The case was listed on 17.2.2021 and 16.6.2021. On 16.6.2021, none has appeared on behalf of the applicant.
The anticipatory bail application becomes infructuous, if:-
(a) final report is submitted against the accused;
(b) if the accused-applicant is exonerated by the investigating officer of the charges;
(c) if the accused-applicant is arrested before the grant of interim anticipatory bail;
(d) the applicant is not interested in prosecuting the anticipatory bail application for reasons best known to him or his counsel; or
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an anticipatory bail application becomes infructuous upon non-appearance of the applicant despite revised call and previous non-appearance.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Kamal
Coram
Krishan Pahal
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · November
- Registered
- Case no.
- ABAIL/3075/2021
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court