Dismissed

Yogendra Singh @ Bade Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Aug 2023ABAIL/13649/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a long-pending anticipatory bail application as infructuous due to the applicant's absence over multiple dates, leading to unacceptable delay. The court vacated any interim protection granted earlier.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application is dismissed as infructuous; any interim protection granted, if any, stands vacated.

Yogendra Singh @ Bade Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:162115

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13649 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Yogendra Singh @ Bade Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Asif 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 2021. None was present on behalf of the applicant(s) on 14.7.2023, 24.7.2023 and 2.8.2023. 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 :- 10.8.2023 Siddhant

¶15

Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN PAHAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Yogendra Singh @ Bade Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra Singh @ Bade Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Faiyyaz Vs State of U.P.

Mohd Jafar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Jyoti Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ankur Jain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ratan Manglani Vs State of U.P.

Tej Singh Parihar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others