The single judge granted a stay against coercive action for 45 days, directing courts below to hear and dispose of the petitioner's bail application expeditiously.
No coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner for the period of 45 days from today if she appears and applies for bail.
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.
Court No. - 70
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1426 of 2019
Petitioner :- Smt. Maya Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- Varun Dev Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party no.1 and perused the record with the assistance of leaned counsel for the parties.
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner with a prayer to set aside the impugned orders dated 6.10.2017 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandausi Moradabad in Criminal Case No. 1106 of 2016 (State Vs. Raj Kumar) arising out of case crime no. 726 of 2009, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC Police Station Chandausi, District Moradabad, whereby the application dated 1.10.2016 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. of the prosecution has been allowed as well as order dated 18.2.2019 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge Court No.15, Moradabad in Criminal Revision No. 272 of 2017 (Satish Chand and another Vs. State of U.P.), whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 6.10.2017 has been dismissed.
The learned counsel for the petitioner after advancing his arguments at some length, gave up his challenge to the aforesaid order dated 18.2.2019 against the petitioner and requested to grant some protection, so that petitioner may surrender before the court below. The learned counsel for the petitioner further stated at the Bar that he is not pressing any other prayer made in this application and prayed that a direction be issued to the courts below to consider and decide the bail application of the petitioner expeditiously in accordance with law.
Considering the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is directed that in case petitioner appears before the concerned court below within 45 days from today and applies for bail, the bail application of the petitioner shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in accordance
with settled law laid down by the Seven Judges' decision of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2005 Criminal Law Journal 755 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 437 Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
For the period of 45 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.
With the above observations, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.
Order Date :- 25.3.2019 AK Pandey
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner may be granted protection from coercive action while her bail application is disposed of expeditiously.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Explained¶9
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. 2005 Criminal Law Journal 755
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Explained¶9
(2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 437 Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Smt. Maya Devi
State Of U.P.
Sanjay Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
