Dismissed

Anand Kumar @ Anand Kumar Gaud v. State of U.P. through Its Secretory and 5 Others

Allahabad HC4 Oct 2023ABAIL/11845/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an unpressed anticipatory bail application under CrPC 438 as infructuous due to inordinate delay. The court noted no applicant presence for years and found that the application no longer served its purpose.

What did the court decide?

Disposition as infructuous of the anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 CrPC.

Anand Kumar @ Anand Kumar Gaud Vs State of U.P. through… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:190956

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11845 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Anand Kumar @ Anand Kumar Gaud Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Its Secretory And 5 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Tiwari,Ruchi Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised. None has appeared to press this anticipatory bail application. Learned AGA is present for the State. In the circumstances, I myself have perused the record. Learned AGA could not apprise this Court about the present status of the trial.

¶7

The instant anticipatory bail application was filed in the year 2022. None was present on behalf of the applicant(s) on 18.9.2023 & 26.9.2023. 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. 1-6-2019)] 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 applicant(s) has 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

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶14

Order Date :- 4.10.2023 Siddhant

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anand Kumar @ Anand Kumar Gaud v. State of U.P. through Its Secretory and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Kumar @ Anand Kumar Gaud v. State of U.P. through Its Secretory and 5 Others

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

Kailash Vs State of U.P.

Kallu Mansoori and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bheem Vs State of U.P.

Manish Vs State of U.P.

Jyoti Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Jwala Prasad Vs State of U.P.