The High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. as infructuous and for want of prosecution due to the applicant's absence and the efflux of time.
Anticipatory bail application dismissed as infructuous and for want of prosecution; any interim order stands 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. - 4049 of 2020
Applicant :- Ravindra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hare Krishna Tripathi,Dharmendra Prasad
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
List has been revised.
No one appears on behalf of the applicant to press this anticipatory bail application. 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 13:40:56 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the anticipatory bail application is viable given the lack of appearance and efflux of time.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ravindra Singh
Krishan Pahal
Ravi Kant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
