Dismissed

Mukesh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC27 Sept 2023BAIL/51612/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. as infructuous. The application had been pending for years without the applicant appearing, and no valid reason was provided by the State for the delay. The court vacated any interim protection granted earlier.

What did the court decide?

The apply was dismissed as infructuous; any interim protection granted stands vacated.

Mukesh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:188122

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51612 of 2019

¶4

Applicant :- Mukesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Devendra Yadav,Girish Kumar Pandey 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 21.11.2019 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

Mukesh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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.

Abrar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aman Vs State of U.P.