Sunil v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2025ABAIL/457/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail; Section 438 Cr.P.C.; Section 366 I.P.C.; Case Crime No. 32 of 2001; P.S. Ramraj; District Muzaffar Nagar; application dismissed as not pressed; liberty to seek regular bail; decision expeditious per Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 922; interim protection — no coercive action for two weeks or until surrender; Allahabad High Court; single judge (Deepak Verma, J.); order dated 24.2.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:26469.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application disposed of as not pressed; liberty to appear before the trial court within two weeks and apply for regular bail, to be decided expeditiously in view of Satender Kumar Antil (supra); interim protection from coercive action for two weeks or until surrender, whichever is earlier. ¶¶12

Sunil vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC should be granted to the applicant Sunil in Case Crime No. 32 of 2001 (Section 366 I.P.C.), P.S. Ramraj, District Muzaffar Nagar, during pendency of trial.

¶¶8

Court's answer

The application having been withdrawn as not pressed (with the A.G.A. raising no objection), the court directed that if the applicant appears before the trial court within two weeks and applies for regular bail, that application shall be decided expeditiously in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil.

¶¶10

Ratio / Principle

Interim protection ordered: for the period of two weeks from the date of the order, or until surrender of the applicant before the court below (whichever is earlier), no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble Deepak Verma, J.) — Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 457 of 2025 (Order Date 24.2.2025). Applicant Sunil, wanted in Case Crime No. 32 of 2001, S. 366 I.P.C., P.S. Ramraj, District Muzaffar Nagar, during pendency of trial. Counsel for applicant submitted, and learned A.G.A. had no objection, that the application be dismissed as not pressed, with liberty to file a regular bail application to be decided in view of the law in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 922. Held: (i) if the applicant appears before the trial court within two weeks and applies for regular bail, it shall be decided expeditiously per Satender Kumar Antil (supra); (ii) for two weeks from the date of the order, or until surrender, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. Petition disposed of accordingly.

Sunil v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Faizal Kabadi Alias Mohd Faisal vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Alias Mahesh vs State of U.P.

Sumit Mishra and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Krishna Pal vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Tabassum vs State of U.P. and Another

Sabir and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another