The Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC for want of prosecution and because the application had become infructuous due to the absence of counsel for the applicant.
The anticipatory bail application was 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. - 743 of 2021
Applicant :- Pankaj Rajpoot Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Daga,Keshari Nandan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Piyush Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Neither learned counsel for the applicant/s nor learned counsel for the informant is present 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 :- 27.9.2022 Shalini
Digitally signed by SHALINI JAISWAL Date: 2022.09.28 10:14:49 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Pankaj Rajpoot
State Of U.P.
Krishan Pahal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
