The court dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed years ago as infructuous due to significant delay and lack of applicant presence. Citing precedents regarding prompt disposal, the court vacated any interim protection granted.
Application dismissed as infructuous; interim protection granted, if any, stands 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:174234
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52641 of 2019
Applicant :- Manoj Mishra And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Subhash Gosain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
Order Date :- 29.8.2023 Shalini
Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the long pendency of an anticipatory bail application without applicant presence renders the application infructuous.
Whether the delay charges delay violates the statutory and judicial expectation for prompt disposal of bail applications.
Whether interim protection, if any, should be vacated when the application is dismissed as infructuous.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anotherRelied on¶8
Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC Online SC 825 · Who else cites this
Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. GopalRelied on¶9
Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal, (2021) 12 SCC 612 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Manoj Mishra And Another
Krishan Pahal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
