In an application for anticipatory bail filed by Yusuf Ali, the petitioner failed to appear despite multiple listings where dismissal was indicated. The court, noting the lack of opposition and non-appearance of the petitioner, dismissed the CRM on default.
Dismissal of CRM 3010 of 2021 for default.
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.
5 27-09-2021 (ct. no.32) KOLE
CRM 3010 of 2021
In re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Chanchal Police Station Case No. 204 of 2017 dated 07.04.2017 under Sections 135(i)(a) of the Electricity Act.
In the matter of : Yusuf Ali .... Petitioner. Mr. N. P. Agarwala, Mr. P. Bose, … For the State. Mr. A. Mitra, … for WBSEDCL.
Mr. A. Mitra,
This matter was called on for hearing on several occasions. Nobody appeared for the petitioner. We had directed this matter to be listed under the heading “For Dismissal”. Today, the matter has been so listed.
Today also nobody appears in support of this application for anticipatory bail. It seems that the petitioner is not interested to proceed with this application.
CRM 3010 of 2021 is, accordingly, dismissed for default.
( Bivas Pattanayak, J. ) ( Arijit Banerjee, J. )
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an application for anticipatory bail should be dismissed for default due to non-appearance of the petitioner.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Yusuf Ali
The State
Bivas Pattanayak
Arijit Banerjee
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
