Dismissed

Mangal Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC17 Aug 2023BAIL/52950/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed in 2019 as infructuous. The applicant failed to appear for the last three hearings. The court dismissed the application citing the efflux of time and the principles laid down in Satender Kumar Antil and Ishwarlal Mali Rathod regarding timely disposal and refusal of routine adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed as infructuous; interim protection, if any, stands vacated.

Mangal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:165503

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52950 of 2019

¶4

Applicant :- Mangal Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Devesh Kumar Verma,Anil Kumar Pandey,Suresh Chandra Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised. Neither of the counsels appearing on behalf 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 three occasions also i.e. on 20.7.2023, 28.7.2023 and 7.8.2023. 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 :- 17.8.2023 Vikas

¶14

[Krishan Pahal, J.]

¶15

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mangal Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangal Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Pramod @ Pintoo Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Furkan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.

Anjum Praveen Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Poojan Jaiswal Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another