Dismissed

Abrar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Sept 2023BAIL/51452/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed in 2019 as infructuous due to significant delay, lack of applicant appearance, and uncertainty regarding the trial's status, citing statutory time limits and Supreme Court precedents against mechanical adjournments.

What did the court decide?

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

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:188138

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51452 of 2019

¶4

Applicant :- Abrar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Akbar Shah Alam Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant anticipatory bail application was filed on 20.11.2019 and none was present on behalf of the applicant on the last two occasions also i.e. on 22.8.2023 and 19.9.2023. 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. 1-6-2019)] 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

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶14

Order Date :- 27.9.2023 Shalini

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Abrar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abrar 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

Sauvir Singh Vs State of U.P.

Subhash Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Ali Hassan @ Ali Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tanzeemurrahman Alias Tanjim Vs State of U.P.

Mukesh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Aman Vs State of U.P.