Kush Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

Kush Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing prayer refused; conditional interim relief granted: applicant to appear before the court concerned within three weeks and move a bail application, to be considered and disposed of in terms of the guidelines/observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil ((2021) 10 SCC 773); no coercive action against the applicant for three weeks; the protective order is of no avail if no bail application is moved within that period.

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 108 of 2022 (State vs. Sandip Verma & others) under Sections 66-D Information & Technology Act, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC (Police Station Sahtawar, District Ballia), including the charge sheet dated 24.06.2023 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 07.09.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st, Ballia, should be quashed. +1 more

Court's answer

The prayer for quashment of the entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 108 of 2022, the charge sheet dated 24.06.2023 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 07.09.2024 is refused.

Ratio / Principle

None of the grounds urged were convincing for seeking quashing of the entire proceedings, and with the above directions the application was finally disposed of.

Key takeaways

In view of the applicant relinquishing the quashment prayer, if he appears before the court concerned within three weeks and moves an application for bail, it shall be considered and disposed of in terms of the guidelines/observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil ((2021) 10 SCC 773).ratio¶10
For a period of three weeks from the date of this order, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.ratio¶11
If no bail application is moved within the prescribed three-week period, this protective order will be of no avail to the applicant.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal proceedings - quashing application - prayer relinquished in favour of bail under Satendra Kumar Antil guidelines. Application u/s 482 No. 44772 of 2024 (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Court No. 77, Justice Saurabh Srivastava alone, decided September 11, 2025): Applicant Kush Kumar Singh sought quashing of the entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 108 of 2022 (State vs. Sandip Verma & others) under Sections 66-D Information & Technology Act and 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, Police Station Sahtawar, District Ballia, including the charge sheet dated 24.06.2023 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 07.09.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st, Ballia. At the outset, counsel relinquished the quashing prayer and elected to seek bail before the trial court per the guidelines/observations of the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773. Court refused the quashing prayer, held none of the grounds convincing for quashing the entire proceedings, and finally disposed of the application with conditional interim relief: if the applicant appears within three weeks and lodges a bail application, it shall be considered and disposed of per the said Apex Court guidelines; no coercive action for three weeks; the order is of no avail absent a timely bail application.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44772 of 2024

Versus Kush Kumar Singh	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) :	Pradeep Singh Sengar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :	G.A.

Court No. - 77

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

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

This application has been filed by the applicants to quash the entire proceeding of Case Crime No.108 of 2022 (State vs. Sandip Verma & others) under Sections 66-D Information & Technology Act 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC Police Station Sahtawar, District Ballia including Charge sheet dated 24.06.2023 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 07.09.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st, Ballia.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he relinquishes the prayer for quashment and wishes to move bail application before the trial court in view of the guidelines/observations given by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773

Accordingly, the prayer sought through the instant application, is refused.

Considering the above submissions and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that in case the applicant appears before the court concerned within three weeks from today and moves application for bail, the same shall be considered and disposed of in terms of the guidelines/observations given by Hon'ble Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil (supra).

For a period of three weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

A482 No. 44772 of 2024

2

It is made clear that in the event no such application is moved within the time prescribed above, this order will be of no avail to the applicant.

With the above direction, the instant application under Section 428 Cr.P.C is finally disposed of . However, it is made clear that none of the grounds are convincing for seeking quashing of entire proceedings.

September 11, 2025

Rakesh

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad