A single judge dismissed the applicant's long-pending 2020 anticipatory bail application as infructuous due to delay and inactivity on the applicant's side over the last three hearings, referencing Supreme Court directions on timely disposal and avoiding mechanical adjournments.
Application dismissed as infructuous; interim protection 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:155420
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1416 of 2020
Applicant :- Sanni Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rohit Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
Order Date :- 3.8.2023 Siddhant
Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an anticipatory bail application filed in 2020 which remained pending for years without active participation from the applicant should be dismissed.
Whether the adjournments in the matter were granted mechanically causing delay contrary to Supreme Court precedent.
Whether the application has become infructuous due to the efflux of time.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anotherExplained¶8
Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 825 · Who else cites this
Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. GopalExplained¶9
Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal, (2021) 12 SCC 612 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sanni
Krishan Pahal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
