Disposed¶18

Kishana Devi and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Sept 2025CRLA/8423/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Raj Beer Singh, J.; CRLA 8423 of 2025; Section 495 BNSS; Section 446 Cr.P.C.; recovery warrants against sureties; S.S.T. No. 794 of 2017; POCSO Special Judge Budaun; murder of accused Gajendra in Punjab; application 27 Kha rejected; no show cause notice; objections to be decided by reasoned order; interim protection from coercive action; disposed October 31, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed at admission stage with directions: objections to the recovery warrants/recovery proceedings, if filed within three weeks, to be considered and decided by reasoned order; no coercive action against the appellants in the interregnum till disposal of such objections. ¶18

Kishana Devi and Another vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8423 of 2025

¶3

Kishana Devi And Another

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of U.P.	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Mahendra Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 51

¶8

HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶10

This appeal is being decided at the stage of admission itself.

¶11

The present criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 495 BNSS against the order dated 21.05.2025, passed by Additional District Judge / Special Judge, (POCSO Act), Court No. 2, Budaun in S.S.T. No. 794 of 2017, under Section 446 Cr.P.C., Police Station- Qadar Chowk, DistrictBudaun, whereby recovery warrants have been issued against the appellants.

¶12

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that appellants were surety of accused Gajendra in S.S.T. No. 794 of 2017. During pendency of the trial, said accused Gajendra has gone to Punjab, where he was murdered. In that regard husband of appellant No. 1 has lodged a first information report. Learned counsel further submitted that husband of appellant No. 1 has filed an application before the trial court stating aforesaid fact regarding murder of accused Gajendra but the said application has been rejected without assigning any reason and recovery warrants have been issued against the appellants. It is submitted that no show cause notice was issued to the appellants before issuance of recovery warrants under Section 446 Cr.P.C. Referring to these facts, it was submitted that the impugned order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside.

¶13

Learned AGA has opposed the application and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

¶14

CRLA No. 8423 of 2025

¶15

¶16

It appears from record that appellants were surety for accused Gajendra in S.S.T. No. 794 of 2017. The case of appellants is that during pendency of the trial, said accused Gajendra was murdered in Punjab State and in that regard an application No. 27 Kha was filed before the trial court but it was rejected without assigning any reason. It was also pointed out on behalf of the appellants that no show cause notice has been issued to them before issuance of recovery warrants under Section 446 Cr.P.C.

¶17

In view of aforesaid, it is directed that in case appellants file their objections against the said recovery warrants / recovery proceedings before the court concerned within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided by a reasoned order. It is further directed that for a period of three weeks from today and in case such an objections are filed by the appellants within the aforesaid period, till the disposal of such objection by the court concerned, no coercive action shall be taken against the appellants.

¶18

The criminal appeal is disposed of in above terms.

¶19

(Raj Beer Singh,J.)

¶20

October 31, 2025

¶21

Anand

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ANAND VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kishana Devi and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishana Devi and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Prakash vs State of U.P.

Shamshad and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Firoz and Another vs State of U.P.

Sandeep and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Sheela Mishra vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

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