Dismissed

Doodhnath Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 May 2023ABAIL/986/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge dismissed the applicant's anticipatory bail application dated 25.1.2023 as infructuous after significant delay of over two years. The court held that the application was rendered stale due to the applicant's absence and lack of pursuit, vacating any interim protection.

What did the court decide?

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

Doodhnath Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:117003

¶2

Court No. - 83

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 986 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Doodhnath Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rama Shanker Yadav,Krishna Kant Dixit,Rajesh Kumar Yadav

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kalamuddin,M. A. Siddiqui

¶6

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶7

List has been revised.

¶8

None has appeared to press this anticipatory bail application. Learned AGA is present for the State, but could not apprise this Court about the present status of the trial. In the circumstances, I myself have perused the record.

¶9

The instant anticipatory bail application was filed on .25.1.2023. None was present on behalf of the applicant on the last two occasions. It cannot be allowed to swing years together in the cloak of pendency.

¶10

Sub-Section 5 of Section 438 Cr.P.C. 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.

¶11

The Apex Court in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod vs. 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.

¶12

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.

¶13

The application is, accordingly, dismissed as infructuous.

¶14

Interim protection granted, if any, stands vacated.

¶15

[Krishan Pahal, J.]

¶16

Order Date :- 24.5.2023 Vikas

¶17

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

Doodhnath Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Doodhnath Yadav 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

Amit Kumar Goyal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd Ahmad Khan Vs State of U.P.

Nazar Mohammad Vs State of U.P.

Aakash Kesherwani Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Yakin Khan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Sudesh Kumari Vs State of U.P.