Advocates:
ABDUL QADIR ABBASI

ITEM NO.20 Court 8 (Video Conferencing) SECTION II

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s). 1652/2022

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23-08-2018

in CRMBA No. 01/2018 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At

Allahabad)

SANTO DEVI Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF U.P. Respondent(s)

(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.11116/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY

IN FILING and IA No.11120/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE

IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.11119/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.

and

IA

No.11117/2022-PERMISSION

TO

FILE

ADDITIONAL

DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES )

Date : 31-01-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI

For Petitioner(s)

Mr. Tanveer Ahmad, Adv.

Ms. Farha Naaz, Adv.

Mr. Abdul Qadir Abbasi, AOR

For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Delay condoned.

This special leave petition is against an order dated

23.08.2018 passed by the High Court, which is extracted

hereinbelow:-

“Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

he does not want to press this bail application

at this stage and the same may be dismissed as

withdrawn.

On the request made by learned counsel for the

appellant, this bail application is dismissed as

withdrawn at this stage.”

Digitally signed by

Rachna

Date: 2022.02.02

10:06:07 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

It appears that the counsel for the petitioner submitted that

he did want to press the bail application and the same might be

dismissed as withdrawn at that stage.

The application filed by the petitioner having been dismissed

as not pressed, the question of interference by this Court in

exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India

cannot and does not arise.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

submits that learned counsel had made the submissions in Court

without instructions. If that be so, the appropriate remedy is to

take necessary action against the counsel who made such submissions

without instructions. It may, however, be noted that the impugned

order does not record any submission of the counsel to the effect

that he had instructions from the petitioner not to press the

petition. Be that as it may, the question of entertaining this

special leave petition does not arise.

The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Considering that the petitioner is a senior citizen, we

request the High Court to give some precedence and dispose of the

criminal appeal as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with

law.

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

(GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA) (MATHEW ABRAHAM)

AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)