Satyam v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a bail application under Section 439 CrPC as the applicant did not appear to press the plea. Counsel for the State was present.
What did the court decide?
The bail application was dismissed in non-prosecution due to the absence of the applicant.
What the court decided
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:237023
Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52186 of 2023
Applicant :- Satyam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Radhey Shyam Yadav
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
- List revised.
- No one appears on behalf of the applicant to press this application. Sri Bare Lal Bind, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Radhey Shyam Yadav, learned counsel for the first informant are present.
- Learned counsel for the State submits that his affidavit in compliance of previous order dated 06.12.2023 is ready.
- This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Satyam, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 176 of 2023, under Sections 376, 456, 504, 506 I.P.C. registered at P.S. Rajepur, District Farrukhabad.
- Since there is no representation on behalf of the applicant, the present bail application is dismissed in non prosecution.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a bail application should be disposed of when the applicant does not appear to press it.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Satyam
Coram
Samit Gopal
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · December
- Registered
- Case no.
- BAIL/52186/2023
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court