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

Vinod Chauhan 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 disposed of with liberty to counsel to withdraw it and file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction, such bail application to be decided in the light of the Supreme Court's observations in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51 (category (A): bail applications of accused against whom charge-sheet has been submitted on appearance may be decided without taking the accused in physical custody or by granting interim bail till the bail application is decided).

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 380 of 2024 (State Vs. Vinod Chauhan and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 119 of 2022 under Sections 323 and 506 IPC, Police Station Dohrighat, District Mau, together with the cognizance/summoning order dated 16.11.2023 pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/FTC/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau, ought to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. +1 more

Court's answer

After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court refused the applicants' prayer to quash the proceedings.

Ratio / Principle

The Court permitted learned counsel for the applicants to withdraw the Section 482 application with liberty to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction, and accordingly disposed of the application with that liberty.

Key takeaways

The Court directed that, in case a bail application is filed by the learned counsel for the applicants, it shall be decided in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 75; Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.), Order dated 24.02.2025 in Application u/s 482 CrPC No. 39249 of 2024 (Vinod Chauhan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another): Applicants sought quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 380 of 2024 (State Vs. Vinod Chauhan and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 119 of 2022 under Sections 323 and 506 IPC, Police Station Dohrighat, District Mau, and of the cognizance/summoning order dated 16.11.2023 pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/FTC/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau. Counsel informed the Court that the applicants were not arrested during investigation, the charge-sheet had been submitted, and the offence was punishable up to seven years. After considering the facts, the Court refused the prayer to quash; counsel was allowed to withdraw the application with liberty to file a regular bail application before the competent jurisdiction, and the application was disposed of with that liberty. Any such bail application is to be decided in the light of the Supreme Court's observations in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51, category (A) — where a charge-sheet has been submitted and the accused has appeared, the bail application may be decided without taking the accused into physical custody or by granting interim bail until the bail application is decided, with a better exercise of discretion in favour of the accused.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:25755

Court No. - 75

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39249 of 2024

Applicant :- Vinod Chauhan And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Yadav,Satya Narayan Yadav

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

Sri Arun Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Karunakar Singh, 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 of Criminal Case No. 380 of 2024 (State Vs. Vinod Chauhan and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 119 of 2022, under Sections 323, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station- Dohrighat, District- Mau as well as cognizance/ summoning order 16.11.2023 pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/FTC/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau.

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 :- 24.2.2025 MAA/-

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AZAD ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad