We've just released a major update for LAWFYI to improve its capabilities. Kindly clear your browser cache to avoid any disruptions!

Learn More
Reached Daily Limit?

Explore a new way of legal research!

Click Here
Indian CasesSupreme Court of India

Sunita Bhati vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 21 June 2019

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Supreme Court of India
Sunita Bhati vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 21 June, 2019
Author: Deepak Gupta
Bench: Deepak Gupta, Surya Kant
ITEM NO.801 COURT NO.4 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). 21569/2019

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20-06-
2019 in CRMSTB No. 1/2019 passed by the High Court Of
Judicature At Allahabad)

SUNITA BHATI Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. Respondent(s)

Date : 21-06-2019 This petition was mentioned today.

CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
(VACATION BENCH)

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Pai Amit, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
List today at the end of the Board.

[ CHARANJEET KAUR ] [ VIDYA NEGI ]
A.R.-CUM-P.S. COURT MASTER

REVISED
ITEM NO.24 COURT NO.4 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). 21569/2019 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20-06-2019 in CRMSTB No. 1/2019 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad) SUNITA BHATI Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. Respondent(s) ([ TO BE TAKEN UP AT THE END OF THE BOARD TODAY I.E. 21-06- 2019. ] ) Date : 21-06-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT (VACATION BENCH) For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sudhanshu Chaudhari, Adv. Mr. Pai Amit, AOR Mr. Rahat Bansal, Adv.
Mr. Love Dishek, Adv.
For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Permission to file Special Leave Petition is granted. The High Court rejected the Bail Petition on the ground that there are 45 cases of heinous crime pending against the husband of the petitioner.
Since the husband of the petitioner is accused in a murder case and is involved in 45 other cases of heinous crime, we are not inclined to grant bail.
The Special Leave Petition is dismissed accordingly. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (DEEPAK SINGH) (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)