Anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.; the Government Advocate raised a maintainability objection citing a Karnataka High Court judgment, and the court adjourned the matter to allow the applicant's counsel time to prepare, listing it afresh.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1159 of 2025
Smt. Suman Devi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Yogeshwar Sharan Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 15
HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.
Learned Addl. Government Advocate raised a preliminary objection that the anticipatory bail application is not maintainable in view of the judgment in judgment dated 21.1.2022 passed by Karnataka High Court in Ramesh versus State through Dy. RFO, Hosur Section Gauribindanur Range Chikkaballapura District.
The applicant's counsel who has filed supplementary affidavit today in court which is taken on record, prays for and is allowed one week's time to prepare the case.
List on 6.11.2025 as fresh.
(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)
October 28, 2025
kkb/
Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramesh v. State through Dy. RFOReferred
Ramesh versus State through Dy. RFO, Hosur Section Gauribindanur Range Chikkaballapura District
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Suman Devi
State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.
Karunesh Singh Pawar
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
