Ravindra Saroj and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ravindra Saroj and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Prayer to quash refused; application withdrawn and disposed of with liberty to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction, to be decided in light of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51 (Category A observations).

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 866 of 2020 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 01.08.2023 (taking cognizance under Sections 323, 504, 451 IPC) should be quashed.

Court's answer

After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicants' prayer to quash the proceedings and the cognizance/summoning order was refused.

Ratio / Principle

Learned counsel for the applicants withdrew the application with liberty to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction, and the application stands disposed of with that liberty.

Key takeaways

If a bail application is filed by the applicants, it shall be decided in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.) — Application styled 'APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 2748 of 2025', stated in the body to be under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — Ravindra Saroj and 3 others v. State of U.P. and another. Applicants sought quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 866 of 2020 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 01.08.2023 whereby the Magistrate took cognizance under Sections 323, 504 and 451 IPC (Police Station Badlapur, District Jaunpur), pending before Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C., Jaunpur. The court recorded that the offence is punishable up to seven years (per counsel) and refused the quashing prayer. Counsel then withdrew the application with liberty to seek regular bail before the competent court; the application was disposed of with that liberty, any bail application to be decided in light of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51 (Category A — charge-sheeted accused appearing without custody may be considered for bail without physical custody or interim bail). Order dated 5.8.2025.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:131599

Court No. - 74

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2748 of 2025

Applicant :- Ravindra Saroj And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Singh,Vinay Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

Sri Deepak Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Pusp Raj Singh, brief holder for the State and perused the material on record.

The present application under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 866 of 2020, as well as cognizance/ summoning order dated 01.08.2023 by which the learned Magistrate took cognizance under Sections 323, 504, 451 of I.P.C., Police Station- Badlapur, District Jaunpur, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ F.T.C., Jaunpur.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the offence is punishable up to 7 years imprisonment.

Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants is, hereby, refused.

After some arguments, learned counsel for the applicants wants to withdraw the application with liberty to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction.

In case bail application is filed by the learned counsel for the applicants, the same shall be decided in the light of the observations made in the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51, wherein the Supreme Court considering the category(A) as mentioned in the paragraph no. 2, bail applications of such accused against which charge-sheet has been submitted on appearance may be decided without the accused being taken in physical custody or by granting interim bail till the bail application is decided. It has been observed that at the cost of repetition, we wish to state that, in category A, one would expect a better exercise of discretion on the part of the court in favour of the accused.

The application stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. Order Date :- 5.8.2025 Ishan

Digitally signed by :- ISHAN JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad