Dismissed

Nuruddin v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Aug 2023BAIL/53253/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application as infructuous after nearly four years of pendency. With the applicant absent from recent hearings and no update on the trial status, the court found the application merited dismissal rather than extension under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed as infructuous; any interim protection granted orally is vacated.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:173085

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53253 of 2019

¶4

Applicant :- Nuruddin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajehs Yadav,Shad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,

¶6

List has been revised. None of the two counsels for the applicants have 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 in the year 2019. None was present on behalf of the applicant(s) on 28.7.2023, 7.8.2023 and 17.8.2023. 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. 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(s) 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 :- 28.8.2023 Siddhant

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nuruddin v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nuruddin 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

Nazim Vs State of U.P.

Ram Nandan @ Ram Nandan Chaudhary and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Indradev Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Another

Faim @ Fahiem Vs State of U.P.

Parminder Singh Alias Vishal Vs State of U.P.

Ramji Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another