Dinesh Sonkar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Dinesh Sonkar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application withdrawn with liberty to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction; any such bail application to be decided in light of the Supreme Court's Category A observations in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51 (decision possible without physical custody, or with interim bail till the bail application is decided). Quashing prayer itself was refused.

Issue for consideration

Whether the application under Section 482 CrPC should be allowed, i.e., whether the entire proceedings of Case Crime No.654 of 2023 (Ss. 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 308, 352 IPC, P.S. Barhalganj, Gorakhpur) and the cognizance/summoning order dated 09.09.2024 pending before Civil Judge (S.D.)/A.C.J.M. No.3, Gorakhpur should be quashed.

Court's answer

After considering the facts and circumstances, the court refused the applicants' prayer for quashing the proceedings and the summoning order.

Ratio / Principle

Learned counsel for the applicants was permitted to withdraw the Section 482 application, with liberty to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction.

Key takeaways

Any regular bail application subsequently filed shall be decided in light of the Supreme Court's observations in Satender Kumar Antil (2022) 10 SCC 51, Category A, i.e., for accused against whom the charge-sheet has been submitted upon appearance, bail may be decided without taking the accused into physical custody, or by granting interim bail until the bail application is decided.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRIMINAL – Quashing (S. 482 CrPC refused) / Bail – Satender Kumar Antil guidance. Allahabad High Court (Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.), Application U/S 482 No. 38438 of 2024 (Dinesh Sonkar & 3 others v. State of U.P.), order dated 07.02.2025. Applicants sought quashing of the entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 654 of 2023 (Ss. 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 308, 352 IPC, P.S. Barhalganj, Distt. Gorakhpur) and the cognizance/summoning order dated 09.09.2024 pending before Civil Judge (S.D.)/A.C.J.M. Court No.3, Gorakhpur; they had not been arrested during investigation and a charge-sheet had been filed, the offence being punishable up to 7 years. The prayer to quash was refused; counsel withdrew the application with liberty to file a regular bail application before the competent court. The High Court directed that any such bail application be decided in light of the Supreme Court's observations in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51 (Category A: accused against whom charge-sheet submitted on appearance may be dealt with without physical custody, or granted interim bail till the bail application is decided). Application stands disposed of with that liberty.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:19097

Court No. - 75

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38438 of 2024

Applicant :- Dinesh Sonkar And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Munna Tiwari,Shrinivas Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anil Kumar Pandey,G.A.

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

Ms. Priti Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Munna Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Anil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed to quash the entire proceedings arising out of Case Crime No.654 of 2023 (State Vs. Dinesh Sonkar & others), under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 308, 352 of IPC, Police Station Barhalganj, District Gorakhpur as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 09.09.2024, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.)/A.C.J.M., Court No.3, Gorakhpur.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants were not arrested during the course of investigation and the charge-sheet have been submitted against them. It is further submitted 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 judgments 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 except 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 :- 7.2.2025 Mini

Digitally signed by :- MINI KANAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad