The court dismissed an anticipatory bail application as infructuous due to the applicant's prolonged absence and the inability of the State AGA to apprise the court of the trial's status, citing delays contrary to statutory requirements.
Dismissed as infructuous; prior interim protection, if any, 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:104346
Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2299 of 2023
Applicant :- Pritam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Pravesh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
(Krishan Pahal, J.)
Order Date :- 15.5.2023 Ravi Kant
Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the anticipatory bail application rendered infructuous due to prolonged inactivity and lapse of time.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anotherRelied on¶3
Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC Online SC 825 · Who else cites this
Sumit Mishra vs. Union of IndiaReferred¶4
Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal, (2021) 12 SCC 612 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Pritam
Krishan Pahal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Krishan Pahal
Parties & counsel
