The single-judge court dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed in 2022 as infructuous due to prolonged inactivity and flouting of statutory timelines for disposal, citing the applicant's failure to appear and the mechanical granting of adjournments.
Application dismissed as infructuous; interim protection, if any, vacated.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:98633
Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11658 of 2022
Applicant :- Ashok Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
Order Date :- 8.5.2023 Siddhant
Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the anticipatory bail application filed in 2022 should be allowed after significant delay with no appearance by the applicant.
Whether the long pendency and efflux of time rendered the application infructuous.
How to apply Section 438 Cr.P.C. standards regarding disposal timelines to this specific case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anotherReferred¶8
Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC Online SC 825 · Who else cites this
Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. GopalReferred¶9
Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal, (2021) 12 SCC 612 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ashok Gupta
State of U.P.
Krishan Pahal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
