Allahabad High Court
RAJESHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
Holding
An anticipatory bail application is dismissed for want of prosecution when the applicant does not appear and the apprehension of arrest has ceased.
Summary
The applicant Rajesh filed an anticipatory bail application in a criminal case (Crime No.153 of 2025) alleging involvement under several IPC sections. No counsel appeared for the applicant or the informant, though the State's A.G.A. was present. The court observed that the passage of time had rendered the application infructuous, as either the applicant had already been arrested or the apprehension of arrest no longer existed. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was dismissed for lack of prosecution, and any interim order was vacated. The court directed communication of the order to the concerned court and allowed the applicant to file a fresh application if the cause of action still persisted.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate disposition of an anticipatory bail application when the applicant fails to appear and the apprehension of arrest no longer exists?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438
- Indian Penal Code — s. 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Indian Penal Code
- dismissal for want of prosecution
- court procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 8926 of 2025
Rajesh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Indrajeet Kumar Shukla, Sanjay Kumar
Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, G.A.
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in
Case Crime No.153 of 2025, under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3),
340(2), 352, 351(2) B.N.S., Police Station Alinagar, District Chandauli,
with a prayer to grant him anticipatory bail.
2. No one appears on behalf of the applicant or the informant to press this
anticipatory bail application, even in the revised call, though the learned
A.G.A. for the State is present.
3. It appears that the matter has become infructuous by efflux of time.
Either the applicant has been arrested or apprehension of his arrest no
longer survives.
4. Present anticipatory bail application is, therefore, dismissed for want of
prosecution.
5. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
6. Office to communicate this order to the court concerned within a week.
7. If the cause of action still survives, the applicant may file appropriate
application for reviving the matter on merits.
(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
September 28, 2026
Radhika
Digitally signed by :-
RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…