Manju Devi v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC dismissed for want of prosecution as no one appeared to press the claim and it became infructuous.
What did the court decide?
Application dismissed for want of prosecution and being infructuous; interim order vacated.
What the court decided
Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 751 of 2020
Applicant :- Manju Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kartikeya Saran Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
None is present on behalf of the applicant 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 :- 19.9.2022 Sanjeet
Digitally signed by SANJEET KUMAR YADAV Date: 2022.09.19 15:52:41 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Manju Devi
Coram
Krishan Pahal
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · September
- Registered
- Case no.
- ABAIL/751/2020
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court