Smt. Shakuntala Dubey Vs the State of U.P. and Anr. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Smt. Shakuntala Dubey Vs the State of U.P. and Anr. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the appellant to file a bail application before the trial court, which is to be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law; police directed not to take coercive action against the applicant for 30 days from the date of the order or until the bail application is filed, whichever is earlier, with no extension beyond the 30-day period.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant should be given liberty to apply for bail before the trial court, with that application to be decided in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil and Musheer Alam, and whether interim protection from coercive action should be extended.

Court's answer

The application is disposed of with liberty as prayed for: if the applicant applies for bail before the court below, the prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

Ratio / Principle

In view of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra) and Musheer Alam (Supra), the police officer concerned is expected not to take any coercive action against the applicant for 30 days from the date of the order or until the applicant applies for bail, whichever is earlier; no application for extension of time will be entertained after lapse of the 30-day period.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 11 (Saurabh Lavania, J.; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:45155; Order Date 4.8.2025) disposed of Criminal Appeal No. 647 of 2020 filed by Smt. Shakuntala Dubey against the judgment and order dated 26.08.2017 of the Special Judge (SC & ST Act), Faizabad in Case No. 76/2017 (State Vs. Ram Achal and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 366/16 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 325 IPC and Section 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Poora Kalandar, District Faizabad, along with consequential Non-Bailable Warrant dated 08.01.2020. Following counsel's submission, and relying on the Supreme Court's law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51, and Musheer Alam vs. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 116, the Court gave liberty to the appellant to apply for bail before the trial court, directed that such bail application be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law, and observed that the police officer concerned is expected to refrain from coercive action for 30 days or until the bail application is filed, whichever is earlier, with no extension of that period to be entertained thereafter.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45155

Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 647 of 2020 Appellant :- Smt. Shakuntala Dubey Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi,Abhishek Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Radhey Shyam Tiwari

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record.

The present application has been filed by the applicant for the following main relief(s):-

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 26.08.2017, passed by the Special Judge (Sc & St Act), Faizabad in Case No. 76/2017 (State Vs. Ram Achal and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 366/16, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 325 Indian Penal Code and 3(2) (v-a) The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Poora Kalandar, District Faizabad alongwith consequential order of Non-Bailable Warrant dated 08.01.2020, and the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may kindly be acquitted."

After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that liberty may be given to the applicant to file bail application before the trial court which may be directed to be decided in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 S.C.R. 351 : (2022) 10 SCC 51 and Musheer Alam vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 116.

Learned AGA has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant.

Keeping in view the aforesaid, the present application is disposed of with liberty as prayed for and with a direction to the court below that if the applicant applies for bail before the court concerned, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

Taking note of the facts of the case and also the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (Supra) and Musheer Alam (Supra) , this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to observe that it is expected from the Police Officer concerned that for a period of 30 days from today or till the applicant applies for bail, whichever is earlier, they would not take any coercive action against the applicant in the aforesaid case. It is made clear that in this regard, no further application for extension of time shall be entertained after lapse of 30 days' period.

With the aforesaid observations, the present application is disposed of.

Order Date :- 4.8.2025 Jyoti/-

Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench