The applicant sought anticipatory bail but was absent from hearings since an interim grant. The High Court dismissed the application for default.
Application dismissed for default due to non-appearance of the applicants.
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.
Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8871 of 2021
Applicant :- Rinku And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shekhar Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
None is present to press this application for anticipatory bail on behalf of the applicants.
Perusal of the order-sheet shows that the applicants were granted interim protection by an order dated 08.04.2021. However, since thereafter none has responded for the applicants when the matter was called for hearing on 05.08.2021, 13.07.2022 and 16.12.2022.
In the above circumstances, the application for anticipatory bail is dismissed for default .
Order Date :- 2.1.2023 Saif
Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Rinku and 5 Others
State of U.P.
Jyotsna Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
