The court dismissed an anticipatory bail application under S. 438 Cr.P.C. for want of prosecution and as it had become infructuous due to the efflux of time. The applicant had not presented themselves in court.
Anticipatory bail 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. - 4047 of 2020
Applicant :- Manju Rani Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Kesari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pradeep Kumar Bhardwaj
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 :- 22.9.2022 Ravi Kant
Digitally signed by RAVI KANT Date: 2022.09.24 13:40:54 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Manju Rani
Krishan Pahal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
