Dismissed

Bheem v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Oct 2023BAIL/51727/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed an unopposed anticipatory bail application filed in 2019 as infructuous. Citing statutory timelines and Supreme Court precedents regarding prompt disposal, the bench held that the prolonged pendency rendered the application ineffective. Interim protection was vacated.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application was dismissed as infructuous, and any interim protection granted was vacated.

Bheem Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:189395

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51727 of 2019

¶4

Applicant :- Bheem Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Gautam,Shiv Vilas Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised. None of the two counsels of the applicant has appeared to press this anticipatory bail application. Learned A.G.A. for the State is present. In the circumstances, I myself have perused the record.

¶7

The instant anticipatory bail application was filed in the year 2019. None was present on behalf of the applicant on the last four occasions also i.e. on 9.08.2023, 17.08.2023, 28.08.2023 and 21.09.2023. 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. 01.06.2019)] 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

Order Date :- 3.10.2023 Ravi Kant

¶14

(Krishan Pahal, J.)

¶15

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bheem v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bheem v. State of U.P.

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

Tanzeemurrahman Alias Tanjim Vs State of U.P.

Abrar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mukesh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kailash Vs State of U.P.

Kallu Mansoori and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd Yameen Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another