Pintu v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
Allahabad High Court, Krishan Pahal J., bail application 9470/2025 (Pintu v. State of U.P.). Counsel requested adjournment. Judgment quotes Supreme Court opinion in Lakshya Tawar v. CBI regarding need for expedited bail decisions.
What the court decided
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9470 of 2025
Pintu
.....Applicant(s)
| Versus |
|---|
| State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) |
| Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mrityunjay Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. |
Court No. - 65
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
- List has been revised.
- Learned counsel for the applicant has sought adjournment for today.
- Expressing the need to decide the bail applications expeditiously the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5480/2025 Lakshya Tawar Vs. Cenral Bureau of Investigation has opined as follows:
"5. In the matters of personal liberty, the High Courts are not expected to keep the matter pending for such a long time and do nothing, except for adjourning from time to time."
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · March
- Registered
- Case no.
- BAIL/9470/2025
All orders in this case
4 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court