The High Court reaffirmed that an anticipatory bail application may be dismissed in default if neither the applicant nor counsel appear at the hearing. This order follows established judicial practice and holds binding precedential value for subordinate courts in bail proceedings.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | ABA/115/2025 of SAROJINE BISHT Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND |
| CNR | UKHC010010542025 |
| Date of Registration | 10-02-2025 |
| Decision Date | 27-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED IN DEFAULT |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for subordinate courts in anticipatory bail dismissals |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure (Bail: Anticipatory Bail Proceedings) |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The anticipatory bail application was dismissed for want of prosecution as neither the applicant nor counsel appeared before the court. This affirms the principle that failure to appear can result in dismissal in default, in line with established judicial procedure. The court also recorded the presence of the State’s counsel, ensuring that the absence was solely on the applicant’s side. There was no adjudication on merits. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The anticipatory bail application came up for hearing; no one appeared for the applicant, while counsel for the State was present. The matter was dismissed in default for non-prosecution. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Uttarakhand for anticipatory bail applications |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering procedural defaults in bail matters |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court reiterates that anticipatory bail applications will be dismissed in default if neither the applicant nor their counsel is present when the matter is called.
- No second opportunity or indulgence is mentioned in the judgment; strict adherence to court procedure is emphasized.
- Lawyers must ensure attendance or make necessary arrangements on listing dates in anticipatory bail matters.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The judgment records that no one appeared for the applicant when the anticipatory bail application was called out for hearing.
- The State was represented through the Additional Advocate General and Brief Holder.
- The absence of applicant or counsel led the court to dismiss the application for “want of prosecution”, without going into merits.
- This follows the procedural rule that applications can be dismissed in default if not prosecuted, as is the standard judicial practice.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- No arguments recorded; the applicant and counsel were absent.
Respondent (State)
- Represented by Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Brief Holder.
- No arguments recorded in the order.
Factual Background
- An anticipatory bail application (ABA No. 115 of 2025) was filed before the High Court of Uttarakhand.
- When the matter was listed on 27.10.2025, no one appeared for the applicant.
- The State was represented at the hearing.
- The application was dismissed in default due to non-appearance by the applicant or counsel.
Statutory Analysis
The order rests on established procedural rules regarding dismissal of applications for non-prosecution. No specific statutory provision is discussed or interpreted in the judgment.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No concurring or dissenting opinions are recorded in this judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or directions are set out; the order follows standard default procedure.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Reiterates and applies settled procedure for dismissal in default due to non-appearance in anticipatory bail matters.