The High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed in 2019 as infructuous due to excessive delay and the applicants' absence. The court noted that such applications should be disposed of quickly and cannot stall for years.
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:189392
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50951 of 2019
Applicant :- Kallu Mansoori And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Devendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Order Date :- 3.10.2023 Ravi Kant
(Krishan Pahal, J.)
Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an anticipatory bail application pending for multiple years should be allowed.
Whether the delay in the hearing of the application renders it infructuous.
Whether the application requires adjournment when none of the applicants appear.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anotherReferred¶8
Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC Online SC 825 · Who else cites this
Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. GopalReferred¶9
Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal, (2021) 12 SCC 612 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kallu Mansoori And 3 Others
State of U.P.
Krishan Pahal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
