Sonu Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sonu Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application under section 528 BNSS finally disposed of with directions that (i) if the applicant surrenders before the court concerned within three weeks and applies for bail, the bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with settled law; and (ii) no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant till three weeks from the order date. No stay of proceedings and no adjudication of the quashing prayer on merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether the chargesheet dated 23.09.2022, the cognizance/summoning order dated 07.10.2022 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.26754 of 2022 (State vs. Sonu), arising out of Case Crime No.294 of 2022 under sections 25/27/30 of the Arms Act, ought to be quashed and further proceedings stayed. +1 more

Court's answer

The quashing challenge was not adjudicated on merits; counsel for the applicant expressly did not press the application on merits, and the disposal proceeded only on the limited, unopposed prayer concerning surrender and expeditious bail consideration. The judgment therefore decides no point on the propriety of the chargesheet, cognizance or proceedings.

Ratio / Principle

The application under section 528 BNSS was finally disposed of with a direction that in case the applicant surrenders before the court concerned within three weeks from the date of the order and applies for bail, his bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with settled law.

Key takeaways

Upon such surrender, the applicant's bail application is to be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with settled law.ratio¶4
Till three weeks from the date of the order, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.; Order Date 23.8.2025) in Application U/S 482 No. 2160 of 2025, Sonu Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:146338): The applicant, arraigned in Criminal Case No.26754 of 2022 (State vs. Sonu) arising out of Case Crime No.294 of 2022 under sections 25/27/30 of the Arms Act, P.S. Jhangha, District Gorakhpur, based on a chargesheet dated 23.09.2022 and cognizance/summoning order dated 07.10.2022, sought quashing under section 528 BNSS. Counsel did not press the petition on merits and confined the prayer, unopposed, to a direction for expeditious bail consideration upon surrender in terms of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825. Held: application disposed of with a direction that on surrender within three weeks the bail application be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with settled law; no coercive action against the applicant till three weeks from the order date. No merits adjudication on quashing.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:146338

Court No. - 77

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2160 of 2025

Applicant :- Sonu Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashwani Kumar Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

This application under section 528 BNSS has been preferred to quash the chargesheet dated 23.09.2022, cognizance/summoning order dated 07.10.2022 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.26754 of 2022 (State vs. Sonu) arising out of Case Crime No.294 of 2022, under sections 25/27/30 of Arms Act, P.S. Jhangha, District- Gorakhpur, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) III, Gorakhpur as well as to stay the further proceedings of abovementioned case.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he is not pressing the application on merits and confined his prayer only to the extent that the present application may be disposed of finally with a direction to the court concerned that in case applicant surrenders before it and apply for bail, his bail application may be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law, including the law laid down in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2022 SCC OnLine SC 825) to which learned counsel for opposite parties have no objection.

In view of the aforesaid, the instant application under section 528 BNSS is finally disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that in case, the applicant surrenders before the court concerned within a period of three weeks from today and apply for bail, his bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with settled law.

However, it is made clear that till three weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant herein.

Order Date :- 23.8.2025 Saif

Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad