Disposed

Urmila Devi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Nov 2022ABAIL/10396/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court accepted the applicant's request to treat the anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC as withdrawn. The court directed the applicant to surrender within six weeks for a regular bail application to be decided in accordance with Satender Kumar Antil guidelines, granting protection from coercive actions during this period.

What did the court decide?

Application treated as withdrawn; applicant directed to surrender within six weeks for regular bail application; no coercive action during interim.

Urmila Devi Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10396 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Urmila Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Juned Alam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Dubey,Santosh Kumar Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Juned Alam, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for State and also perused the material available on record.

¶6

The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for protection in regard to Case No.35570 of 2018, under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 I.P.C., P.S.- Rampur Karkhana (At present P.S. Maduwadeeh), DistrictDeoria.

¶7

After arguing for some time, applicant's counsel submits that the present application for anticipatory bail may be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a regular bail application which may be decided keeping in view the guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another , reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 825 .

¶8

Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. have no objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

In view of the above, considering the aforesaid alternative prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that the applicant shall surrender before the concerned court below within a period of six weeks from today and in case, a regular bail application is filed, the same be decided in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) .

¶10

For the period of six weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicant before the concerned court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant, in the above case.

¶11

With the above observations and directions, this application is disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 4.11.2022 Siddhant

¶13

Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SAHU Date: 2022.11.05 13:37:27 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Urmila Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Urmila Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Farman Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jagdish Prasad Gautam and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Virendra Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Naresh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Yashpal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Shakuntala Vs State of U.P and Another