Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC28 Aug 2023BAIL/53545/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The learned judge dismissed a five-year-old anticipatory bail application dated 2019 as infructuous and considered obsolete due to inordinate delay and lack of application from the applicant. The court vacated any interim protection.

What did the court decide?

The application for anticipatory bail is dismissed as infructuous; interim protection granted, if any, stands vacated.

Ramji Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:173081

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53545 of 2019

¶4

Applicant :- Ramji Mishra And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised. None has 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 31.7.2023, 8.8.2023 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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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.

Nuruddin Vs State of U.P.

Parminder Singh Alias Vishal Vs State of U.P.