Dismissed

Istekhar @ Kala v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC11 Aug 2023ABAIL/5637/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge of Allahabad High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application held infructuous due to prolonged pendency and non-appearance by the applicant across multiple hearings, citing statutory time limits and Supreme Court precedents against mechanical adjournments.

What did the court decide?

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

Istekhar @ Kala Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:165311

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5637 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Istekhar @ Kala Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Nasim Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised. None has appeared on behalf of the applicant to press this anticipatory bail application. Learned A.G.A. for the State is present. In the circumstances, I myself have perused the record.

¶7

The instant anticipatory bail application was filed on 15.5.2023. None was present on behalf of the applicant on the last three occasions also i.e. on 10.07.2023, 25.07.2023 and 03.08.2023. 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. 01.06.2019) 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 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

Order Date :- 11.8.2023 Vikas

¶14

[Krishan Pahal, J.]

¶15

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Istekhar @ Kala v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Istekhar @ Kala 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

Ankur Jain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ratan Manglani Vs State of U.P.

Yogendra Singh @ Bade Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Surendra Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jwala Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another