Dismissed

Chetany Kumar v. State of U.P and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 Aug 2023ABAIL/16091/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed in 2021 as infructuous because the applicant failed to appear, causing unjust delay of years. Relying on Supreme Court precedents mandating swift disposal, the Court held the application could no longer be allowed to swing in the cloak of pendency.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed as infructuous; interim protection vacated.

Chetany Kumar Vs State of U.P and 2 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:166642

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 16091 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Chetany Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Surya Bhan Singh,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised. 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 11.7.2023, 24.7.2023 and 2.8.2023. On 10.8.2023, on the request of counsel for the applicant, the case was adjourned and the date was fixed for today peremptorily. Today, none is present to press it and 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 :- 18.8.2023 Siddhant

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chetany Kumar v. State of U.P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chetany Kumar v. State of U.P and 2 Others

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

Anjum Praveen Vs State of U.P.

Mangal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shiv Poojan Jaiswal Vs State of U.P.

Kanwar Pal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Madun Singh Bhati and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anek Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another