Dismissed¶11

Gorakh and 11 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 May 2023ABAIL/12585/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail; Section 438(5) Cr.P.C. thirty-day final disposal; six-week disposal expectation per Satender Kumar Antil, 2022 SCC Online SC 825, para 73(k); no routine or mechanical adjournments per Ishwarlal Mali Rathod, (2021) 12 SCC 612; dismissal as infructuous by efflux of time; repeated non-appearance of applicants; interim protection vacated; Allahabad High Court; Justice Krishan Pahal; Gorakh v. State of U.P.; 2023:AHC:98616.

What did the court decide?

With none present for the applicants on the last three occasions, the application cannot be permitted to remain pending for years under the cloak of pendency. ¶7

Gorakh and 11 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the anticipatory bail application, pending since 2022 and unpressed on successive dates, ought to be finally disposed of rather than allowed to remain pending. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

Under Sub-Section 5 of Section 438 Cr.P.C., an anticipatory bail application is to be finally disposed of within thirty days of the date of such application.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

With none present for the applicants on the last three occasions, the application cannot be permitted to remain pending for years under the cloak of pendency.

¶7

Key takeaways

Either the trial has concluded or the applicants have lost interest in pursuing the matter; accordingly, by efflux of time the application stands rendered infructuous.ratio¶10
Upon dismissal of the application, any interim protection granted to the applicants stands vacated.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Krishan Pahal, J.; order dated 8.5.2023; Neutral Citation 2023:AHC:98616) — Anticipatory bail application under S. 438 Cr.P.C. by Gorakh and 11 others against the State of U.P., filed in 2022. None appeared for the applicants on the last three occasions and none appeared to press the application; learned AGA could not apprise the Court of the present status of the trial. The Court noted that Sub-Section 5 of Section 438 Cr.P.C. requires final disposal within thirty days, and that in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC Online SC 825 (para 73(k)) the Supreme Court held anticipatory bail applications are expected to be disposed of within six weeks; it further cited Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal, (2021) 12 SCC 612 against granting adjournments in a routine and mechanical manner. Concluding that the application had been rendered infructuous by efflux of time — the trial having apparently concluded or the applicants having lost interest — the Court dismissed the application as infructuous and vacated any interim protection granted.

Gorakh and 11 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gorakh and 11 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kailash Narayan Tiwari and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Mohan Swaroop

Sriram Vs State of U.P.

Madan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ashok Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Harvansh Rai Alias Harvanshlal Choudhary Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shahdab Husain Bakshi Vs State of U.P.