The applicant failed to appear despite a revised call. The High Court noted his lack of interest and dismissed the anticipatory bail application under S. 438 Cr.P.C. for want of prosecution, vacating any interim order.
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.
Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13399 of 2022
Applicant :- Rahul Srivastava Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Sharan Srivastava,R S Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ankit Saran,Devaang Savla
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
Order Date :- 17.8.2023
ss
Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the anticipatory bail application can be dismissed for want of prosecution when no response was filed and the interim order stands vacated.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rahul Srivastava
State of U.P.
Nalin Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
