Disposed

Shobhnath and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2025/891/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought quashing of charge sheet and cognizance order under Sections 3(5), 333, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 324 BNS. Counsel did not press the application and sought liberty to file bail before the trial court; the High Court disposed of the application with a direction to decide bail expeditiously per Satender Kumar Antil if applicants appear within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file bail application before trial court within two weeks; bail to be decided expeditiously per Satender Kumar Antil.

Shobhnath and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45755

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 891 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Shobhnath And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶7

Instant application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicants with prayer for quashing of the charge sheet dated 04.04.2025 filed in F.I.R./Case Crime No.30 of 2025, under Sections 3(5), 333, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 324 B.N.S., Police Station Karaundikalan, District Sultanpur as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 11.05.2025 passed in Criminal Case No.614 of 2025 (State versus Shobhnath and others) and stay further proceedings thereof.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in the present case with false and frivolous allegations. He further added that the applicants were not involved in committing the alleged offence as has been mentioned in the first information report.

¶9

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submits that he does not want to press the application and seeks liberty to file bail application before the learned trial court which may be decided in view of law laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court's

¶10

judgment in the case of Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another; (2022)10 SCC 51.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants.

¶12

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is provided that in case, the applicants appear before the trial court within two weeks from today and file bail application, the same shall be decided expeditiously in view of law laid down in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra).

¶13

The application is disposed off accordingly.

¶14

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 6.8.2025 Anupam S/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shobhnath and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shobhnath and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Kanchan and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Vinod Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Kunnu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Dinesh @ Chhotu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Nitin Mourya and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Masoom Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.