The High Court rejected an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. without hearing because the applicant failed to appear when the application was called, resulting in rejection for want of prosecution.
Rejection of the application for anticipatory bail.
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:180256
Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1294 of 2023
Applicant :- Anoop Kumar Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
None appears for the applicant even when the case is called in the revised list. Learned A.G.A. is present.
It appears that the accused applicant is no more interested in the proceeding of this anticipatory bail application as on the earlier date also none was present for the applicant.
The application is rejected for want of prosecution.
Order Date :- 18.9.2023 Fhd
Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anoop Kumar Sharma
State of U.P.
Nalin Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
