The Allahabad High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. as infructuous due to significant inactivity and delay spanning multiple years, noting the statutory mandate for timely disposal.
The anticipatory bail application was dismissed as infructuous and any interim protection granted was vacated.
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:162104
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13688 of 2021
Applicant :- Tej Singh Parihar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
Order Date :- 10.8.2023 Siddhant
Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN PAHAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delayed anticipatory bail application should be allowed considering the efflux of time.
Whether the application has become infructuous due to inactivity and delay.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anotherReferred¶8
2022 SCC Online SC 825 · Who else cites this
Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. GopalReferred¶9
(2021) 12 SCC 612 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Tej Singh Parihar
State Of U.P.
Krishan Pahal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
