Allahabad High Court
SANTOSH SAINIversusState of U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMIT GOPAL
Holding
The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution because the appellant was not represented to press the prayer for anticipatory bail.
Summary
Santosh Saini appealed to the Allahabad High Court under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, seeking to quash a Special Judge's order rejecting his anticipatory bail application in a case involving offences under the IPC and the SC/ST Act. The appeal was listed, but no counsel appeared on behalf of the appellant to press the prayer for anticipatory bail, despite two counsels being on record. The court observed that the appellant's counsel had lost interest and that there was no representation to pursue the relief. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution due to efflux of time. All pending applications, if any, were ordered disposed, and the order was to be communicated to the trial court.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of the appellant's failure to appear or be represented in an appeal seeking anticipatory bail?
- Whether an appeal can be dismissed for want of prosecution due to efflux of time when no counsel presses the prayer.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 323, 352, 504, 506
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14A(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- procedural default
- efflux of time
- criminal appeal
- dismissal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5594 of 2024
Santosh Saini
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Rajneesh Kumar Sharma, Vinod
Shankar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashok Kumar Pandey, Devi Prasad
Tripathi, G.A., Manish Kumar Pandey
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.
1. List revised.
2. No one appears on behalf of the appellant to press the prayer for
anticipatory bail in the present appeal despite the fact that there are two
learned counsels appearing in the matter.
3. Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State is present.
Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey, Sri Devi Prasad Tripathi and Sri Manish
Kumar Pandey, learned counsels for the opposite party no.2 are also not
present even in the revised call. Office trace out their vakalatnama and
place them on record and make a note in the order sheet about it.
4. This criminal appeal under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellant Santosh Saini, with
the prayer to allow the appeal and quash the rejection order dated
03.05.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Moradabad in Crl.
Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1560 of 2024, Special Session
Trial No. 602 of 2023 (State Vs. Tejpal Saini and others) arising out of
Case Crime No. 1107/2022, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 352
IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station
Majhola, District Moradabad and with a further prayer to grant
anticipatory bail to the appellant along with stay the effect and operation
of the said order in the aforesaid case.
5. It appears that learned counsel for the appellant(s) has lost interest in
the matter by efflux of time.
6. Since there is no representation on behalf of the appellant to press the
prayer for anticipatory bail in the appeal, the appeal is dismissed for want
of prosecution by efflux of time.
CRLA No. 5594 of 2024
2
7. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
8. Registrar (Compliance) to communicate this order to the concerned
trial court for within a week forthwith.
(Samit Gopal,J.)
May 5, 2026
M. ARIF
Digitally signed by :-
MOHAMMAD ARIF
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…