The single-judge bench dismissed the anticipatory bail application considered infructuous and overdue due to the absence of the applicant, even after a revised call to press the matter.
The anticipatory bail application was dismissed for want of prosecution due to non-appearance.
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. - 811 of 2022
Applicant :- Sandeep Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Krishnakant Gupta 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 :- 27.9.2022 Siddhant
Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SAHU Date: 2022.09.27 17:00:30 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the anticipatory bail application became infructuous due to non-appearance.
Whether the application should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sandeep
State Of U.P
Krishan Pahal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
