Smt. Seema Yadav @ Manju Yadav @ Sushma Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court held that in case the applicant appears before the court below within three weeks from the date of the order and seeks bail, her release should be considered in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51. The Court observed that the learned AGA had no objection to the applicant's prayer. The ratio decidendi is that expeditious consideration of bail applications, guided by Supreme Court precedents, is to be facilitated when the State offers no objection and the applicant cooperates with the process. The operative direction was for the court below to consider the applicant's bail application upon her appearance within the stipulated timeframe.

Facts

The applicant, Smt. Seema Yadav, filed an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) seeking a direction for the court below to decide her bail application on the same day. The application arose from a case (GST No. 125 of 2010, formerly GST No. 483 of 2009) involving charges under Sections 2/3 of the Gangster Act, related to Case Crime No. 402 of 2008, registered at Police Station Gandhi Park, District Aligarh. The applicant's counsel stated readiness to appear before the court below and sought consideration of her bail in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation. The learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) for the State had no objection to the prayer.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to a direction for the expeditious disposal of her bail application by the court below, considering the principles laid down in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation. Contentions: Petitioner: The applicant is ready to appear before the court below and seeks her bail to be considered in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51. Revenue/State: The learned AGA stated that he has no objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant.