The High Court dismissed a long-pending anticipatory bail application filed in 2019 as infructuous due to significant delay and lack of appearance by the applicant. The court noted statutory time limits and Supreme Court precedents opposing routine adjournments.
Application dismissed as infructuous; any interim protection granted vacated.
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:164336
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51078 of 2019
Applicant :- Rajendra And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Sharma,Prashant Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
Order Date :- 16.8.2023 Siddhant
Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the long pending anticipatory bail application should be allowed given the delay and lack of appearance by the applicant.
Whether the application has become infructuous due to the efflux of time.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anotherReferred¶3
Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 825 · Who else cites this
Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. GopalReferred¶3
Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal, (2021) 12 SCC 612 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rajendra And 6 Others
Krishan Pahal
Siddhant Sahu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
