JUDGMENT Ramesh Sinha, J. Heard Sri Anant Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri R. K. Maurya, learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the record. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 21.09.2015, passed by the Sessions Judge, District Mathura, in Session Trial No. 943 of 2014 (State Vs. Parvez @ Ghissu and others), under Sections 436, 380, 457, IPC, Police Station KIotwali, District Mathura. He further prayed for stay the proceeding of the impugned order. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is a pregnant lady and her pregnancy is at advance stage and her delivery is due on 03.01.2016. 4. I have gone through the memo of application and the affidavit filed in support of this application, as well as the impugned order and I do not find that the impugned order suffers from any illegality or infirmity requiring any interference by this Court. The learned Magistrate after noticing that there was legally admissible evidence on record indicating at the complicity of the application in the commission of offence. 5. Hence, the prayer for quashing the impugned order is hereby refused. 6. However, it is directed that if the applicant appear and surrender before the court below within six weeks from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 7. For a period of six weeks from today non-bailable-warrant issued against the applicant shall remain stayed. 8. It is made clear that if the applicant does not appear before the trial court within the aforesaid period, the court below will at liberty to take coercive action against him. With the aforesaid observations, the application stands disposed of.