Dismissed

Ali Hassan @ Ali Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Sept 2023ABAIL/4951/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed an old anticipatory bail application filed in 2021 as infructuous due to the applicant's prolonged absence and delay. Noting statutory requirements for timely disposal and citing Supreme Court precedents against mechanical adjournments, the Court held the matter rendered moot by the efflux of time.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed as infructuous; any interim protection granted stands vacated.

Ali Hassan @ Ali Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:186397

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4951 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Ali Hassan @ Ali Ahmad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Gautam 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 on 18.07.2023, 26.07.2023, 21.08.2023, 29.08.2023 & 18.09.2023. 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 :- 26.9.2023 Siddhant

¶15

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

Ali Hassan @ Ali Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ali Hassan @ Ali Ahmad 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

Sambhu Jaiswal and Another Vs State of U.P.

Shyam Sharan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Arun Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sauvir Singh Vs State of U.P.

Subhash Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Chandra Bhan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.