The application is dismissed as infructuous because subsequent developments have rendered the Second Anticipatory Bail Application no longer consequential.
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.
SABA No. 01 of 2019 Hon’ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J.
Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in view of subsequent developments, the Second Anticipatory Bail Application has become infructuous.
In view of the statement of learned counsel for the applicant, the Second Anticipatory Bail Application is dismissed as infructuous.
(Manoj K. Tiwari, J.) NEHA 13.05.2019
Applicant
State of Uttarakhand
Manoj K. Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
