Application under Section 482 CrPC to quash summoning order in a Section 138 NI Act complaint was not pressed; applicant sought surrender and expeditious bail consideration. Court disposed of the application with directions to decide bail within two weeks per Satender Kumar Antil, granting three weeks protection from coercive action.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:16522
Court No. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2711 of 2025
Applicant :- M/S Jna Enterprises Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
"100. In conclusion, we would like to issue certain directions. These directions are meant for the investigating agencies and also for the courts. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to issue the following directions, which may be subject to State amendments:
100.1. The Government of India may consider the introduction of a separate enactment in the nature of a Bail Act so as to streamline the
grant of bails.
100.2. The investigating agencies and their officers are duty-bound to comply with the mandate of Sections 41 and 41-A of the Code and the directions issued by this Court in Arnesh Kumar [Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 449] . Any dereliction on their part has to be brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the court followed by appropriate action.
100.3. The courts will have to satisfy themselves on the compliance of Sections 41 and 41-A of the Code. Any non-compliance would entitle the accused for grant of bail.
100.4. All the State Governments and the Union Territories are directed to facilitate Standing Orders for the procedure to be followed under Section 41 and 41-A of the Code while taking note of the order of the High Court of Delhi dated 7-2-2018 in Amandeep Singh Johar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Amandeep Singh Johar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13448] and the Standing Order issued by Delhi Police i.e. Standing Order 109 of 2020, to comply with the mandate of Section 41-A of the Code.
100.5. There need not be any insistence of a bail application while considering the application under Sections 88, 170, 204 and 209 of the Code.
100.6. There needs to be a strict compliance of the mandate laid down in the judgment of this Court in Siddharth [Siddharth v. State of U.P., (2022) 1 SCC 676 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 423] .
100.7. The State and Central Governments will have to comply with the directions issued by this Court from time to time with respect to constitution of special courts. The High Court in consultation with the State Governments will have to undertake an exercise on the need for the special courts. The vacancies in the position of Presiding Officers of the special courts will have to be filled up expeditiously.
100.8. The High Courts are directed to undertake the exercise of finding out the undertrial prisoners who are not able to comply with the bail conditions. After doing so, appropriate action will have to be taken in light of Section 440 of the Code, facilitating the release.
100.9. While insisting upon sureties the mandate of Section 440 of the Code has to be kept in mind.
100.10. An exercise will have to be done in a similar manner to comply with the mandate of Section 436-A of the Code both at the district judiciary level and the High Court as earlier directed by this Court in Bhim Singh [Bhim Singh v. Union of India, (2015) 13 SCC 605 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 663] , followed by appropriate orders.
100.11. Bail applications ought to be disposed of within a period of two weeks except if the provisions mandate otherwise, with the exception being an intervening application. Applications for anticipatory bail are expected to be disposed of within a period of six weeks with the exception of any intervening application."
"6. We may also notice an aspect submitted by Mr Luthra that while issuing notice to consider bail, the trial court is not precluded from granting interim bail taking into consideration the conduct of the accused during the investigation which has not warranted arrest. On this aspect also we would give our imprimatur and naturally the bail application to be ultimately considered, would be guided by the statutory provisions."
Order Date :- 5.2.2025 Sharad/-
Digitally signed by :- SHARAD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation and anotherRelied on¶4
(2022) 10 SCC 51 · Who else cites this
Arnesh Kumar v. State of BiharReferred
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 · Who else cites this
Amandeep Singh Johar v. State (NCT of Delhi)Referred
Amandeep Singh Johar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13448 · Who else cites this
Siddharth v. State of U.P.Referred
Siddharth v. State of U.P., (2022) 1 SCC 676 · Who else cites this
Bhim Singh v. Union of IndiaReferred
Bhim Singh v. Union of India, (2015) 13 SCC 605 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/S Jna Enterprises
Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
