High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 06 UK CK 0013

Pramila Syal vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 14 June 2012 · Citation: (2012) 2 NCC 119

HON’BLE JUDGES
Prafulla C. Pant, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Application (C482) No. 316 of 2012

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 337 words

Hon''ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.—Heard. By means of this petition moved u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought her release on bail forthwith on execution of the personal bond.

2.

However, no crime number has been mentioned in the petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., in which the bail is sought. Not only this, even it is not mentioned as to where the applicant is presently lodged, and in connection with what offence.

3.

A list has been enclosed as annexure No. 1 to the petition with the copy of letter dated 02.01.2012, issued from the Office of the Superintendent, Model Jail, Chandigarh. The said list discloses as many as one hundred fifty six criminal cases pending against the present petitioner in various courts of Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Haryana, Delhi and Rajasthan.

4.

Learned counsel for the State informs that after the cases of the petitioner Pamila Syal were decided in the State of Uttarakhand, under Prisoners Transfer Warrant issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad, her corpus has been shifted to District Jail, Ghaziabad on 02.05.2012.

5.

In the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that in respect of the criminal cases pending in other states, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to grant bail to the present applicant, particularly, when no details are given in the petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., as to which case the petitioner is seeking bail from this Court.

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the case of C. Natesan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, (Decided by Madras High Court), but the facts of the said case were totally different to the present case, as the detenue was detained in the State of Tamil Nadu and was Under preventive detention. In the present case neither the petitioner is presently lodged in the State of Uttarakhand, nor it is a case of preventive detention. Therefore, the petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., is dismissed (Urgency Application No. 2614 of 2012, stands disposed).