In this criminal application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the applicant failed to appear despite a call. The court held the application infructuous due to the efflux of time and lack of prosecution, and dismissed it.
Anticipatory bail application dismissed for want of prosecution and being infructuous.
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. - 3096 of 2022
Applicant :- Sher Ali @ Shera Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Srivastava,Mohd. Farooq 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 :- 26.9.2022 Shalini
Digitally signed by SHALINI JAISWAL Date: 2022.09.28 10:23:10 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an anticipatory bail application was maintainable given the absence of the applicant.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sher Ali @ Shera
State of U.P.
Krishan Pahal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
