Disposed¶19

Vinay Kumar Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2025A482/10366/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 CrPC Section 528 BNSS quashing charge-sheet summoning order not pressed on merits Satender Kumar Antil AIR 2022 SC 3386 surrender bail application no coercive action three weeks FIR 289/2023 Case 3627/2024 IPC 504 506 427 452 BNS 352 351 324 333 Police Station Inayat Nagar Faizabad Ayodhya ACJM Vinay Kumar Yadav

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of as not pressed on merits, with directions that if the applicants surrender before the trial court within three weeks and prefer a bail application, the trial court shall decide it expeditiously in light of Satender Kumar Antil (AIR 2022 SC 3386), and that no coercive action be taken against the applicants for a period of three weeks. ¶19

Vinay Kumar Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge-sheet dated 04.08.2023 and the summoning order dated 04.04.2024 issued in Case No. 3627/2024 (State Vs. Vinay Kumar and Others), arising out of FIR No. 289/2023, and other consequential orders and proceedings should be quashed and further proceedings stayed. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

Learned counsel for the applicants did not press the application on merits; the prayer to quash the charge-sheet and summoning order was therefore not adjudicated on merits, and the application was dealt with solely on the surrender-and-bail arrangement.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

In case the applicants surrender before the Court below within three weeks and prefer a bail application, the trial court shall decide the said bail application as expeditiously as possible, taking into account the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil.

¶17

Key takeaways

For a period of three weeks from the date of the order, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in Case No. 3627/2024.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Brij Raj Singh, J. — Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS (No. 10366 of 2025) by Vinay Kumar Yadav and 3 others seeking quashing of the charge-sheet dated 04.08.2023 and the summoning order dated 04.04.2024 in Case No. 3627/2024 (State Vs. Vinay Kumar and Others), arising out of FIR No. 289/2023 under Sections 504, 506, 427 and 452 IPC (new Sections 352, 351(2)&(3), 324(4) and 333 BNS), Police Station Inayat Nagar, District Faizabad/Ayodhya, pending before ACJM, Third, Faizabad/Ayodhya, and a stay of further proceedings. Counsel for the applicants did not press the application on merits and prayed for the benefit of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (AIR 2022 SC 3386). The Court disposed of the application, directing that if the applicants surrender before the Court below within three weeks and prefer a bail application, the trial court shall decide it as expeditiously as possible taking into account the law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil, and that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants for three weeks. The quashing prayer was not adjudicated on merits.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10366 of 2025

¶3

Vinay Kumar Yadav And 3 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s)

¶7

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashish Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 16

¶9

HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶11

The present application has been filed with the following main prayers:

¶12

"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is expedient in the interest of justice that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the charge-sheet dated 04.08.2023 and the summoning order dated 04.04.2024 issued in Case No. 3627/2024 (State Vs. Vinay Kumar and Others), arising out of FIR No. 289/2023, U/Ss 504, 506, 427 and 452 IPC (New Ss 352, 351(2)&(3), 324(4) and 333 BNS), Police Station- Inayat Nagar, District-Faizabad/Ayodhya, pending before the court of ACJM, Third, Faizabad/Ayodhya (Annexure No. 3 and 1), and also other consequential orders and proceedings.

¶13

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Case No. 3627/2024 (State Vs. Vinay Kumar and Others), arising out of FIR No.289/2023U/Ss 504, 506, 427 and 452 IPC (New Ss 352, 351(2)&(3), 324(4) and 333 BNS), Police Station- Inayat Nagar, District-Faizabad/Ayodhya, pending before the court of ACJM, Third, Faizabad/Ayodhya, during the pendency of the present criminal application under Section 528 B.N.S.S./ 482 Cr.P.C. before this Hon'ble Court."

¶14

A482 No. 10366 of 2025

¶15

¶16

At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicants submits that he does not want to press this application on merits. However, he submits that the applicants will surrender before the trial court and apply for bail. He prays that the applicants may be granted the benefit of the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in (AIR 2022 SC 3386).

¶17

It is, therefore, directed that in case the applicants surrender before the Court below within three weeks from today and prefer bail application, the trial court will decide the said bail application, as expeditiously as possible, taking into account the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra).

¶18

For a period of three weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

¶19

The application stands disposed of .

¶20

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

¶21

December 10, 2025

¶22

Sachin

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MEHROTRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vinay Kumar Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Kumar Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Amit Kashyap and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Rajendra Prasad @ Rajendra Prasad Chaudhary and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Geetanjali Vs the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Kunda Distt. Pratapgarh and 4 Others

Kamini Awasthi and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Big City Green Residency Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Manish Kumar Srivastava Pratapgarh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Big City Green Residency Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Director Manish Kumar Srivastava and Anothers Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another