The applicant failed to press the anticipatory bail application even at the revised call. The court dismissed the application for want of prosecution as it had become infructuous and vacated any interim order.
The anticipatory bail application is dismissed as infructuous for want of prosecution.
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. - 93 of 2020
Applicant :- Rahul And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
None is present on behalf of the applicants 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 15:52:44 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rahul And 3 Others
State Of U.P
Another
Krishan Pahal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
