Dismissed

Chandra Bhan and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Sept 2023ABAIL/11117/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed in 2019 as infructuous. The judge noted the application remained pending for years without appearance by either the applicants or the counsel for the informant, citing statutory timelines and precedents against routine adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application dismissed as infructuous; interim protection vacated.

Chandra Bhan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:186358

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11117 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Chandra Bhan And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Sharan Giri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Birendra Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised. None has appeared to press this anticipatory bail application. Learned A.G.A. for the State is present. In the circumstances, I myself have perused the record.

¶7

The instant anticipatory bail application was filed in the year 2019. Neither the counsel for the applicants nor the counsel for the informant was present on the last three occasions also i.e. on 21.8.2023, 29.8.2023 and 18.9.2023. It cannot be allowed to swing years together in the cloak of pendency.

¶8

Sub-Section 5 of Section 438 Cr.P.C. [Uttar Pradesh Act 4 of 2019, s. 2 (w.e.f. 01.06.2019)] says that the anticipatory bail application be finally disposed of within thirty days of the date of such application. The Apex Court in para-73(k) of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another , reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 825 has held that the application for anticipatory bail are expected to be disposed of within a period of six weeks.

¶9

The Apex Court in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal, (2021) 12 SCC 612 has categorically held that courts shall not grant the adjournments in routine manner and mechanically and shall not be a party to cause for delay in dispensing the justice.

¶10

It appears that either the trial has concluded or the applicants have lost interest in pursuing the matter. Therefore, by the efflux of time, it seems to have been rendered infructuous.

¶11

The application is accordingly dismissed as infructuous .

¶12

Interim protection granted, if any, stands vacated.

¶13

Order Date :- 26.9.2023 Vikas

¶14

[Krishan Pahal, J.]

¶15

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chandra Bhan and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Bhan and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sambhu Jaiswal and Another Vs State of U.P.

Shyam Sharan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Arun Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sauvir Singh Vs State of U.P.

Subhash Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Ali Hassan @ Ali Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another