Ramu Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ramu Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Prayer to quash the criminal proceedings and the cognizance/summoning order dated 29.08.2024 refused; application permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction, to be decided in light of the Supreme Court's observations in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51.

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 75799 of 2024 (State vs. Ramu and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 270 of 2024, and the cognizance/summoning order dated 29.08.2024 should be quashed. +1 more

Court's answer

Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer of learned counsel for the applicant to quash the proceedings and the cognizance/summoning order was refused.

Ratio / Principle

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

Key takeaways

In case a bail application is filed pursuant to the liberty granted, it shall be decided in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.; decided 05.04.2025; 2025:AHC:48259) — APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. 10253 of 2025 (Ramu v. State of U.P. and Another): Prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 75799 of 2024 (State vs. Ramu and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 270 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 333, 74 BNS (323, 452, 354 IPC), Police Station Farah, District Mathura, and the cognizance/summoning order dated 29.08.2024 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Mathura, was REFUSED. Applicant (not arrested during investigation; charge-sheet submitted; offences punishable up to 7 years imprisonment) was permitted to withdraw the application with liberty to file a regular bail application before the competent court; any such bail application is to be decided in the light of the Supreme Court's category-A observations in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51 — bail without taking the accused into physical custody or by granting interim bail till decision, with better exercise of discretion in favour of the accused (per the cited judgment, as quoted herein). Application stands disposed of.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:48259

Court No. - 72

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10253 of 2025

Applicant :- Ramu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anoop Kumar Mishra,Pradhumn Kumar Pandey

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

Sri Pradhumn Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhishek Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

The present application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 75799 of 2024 (State vs. Ramu and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 270 of 2024, under Sections 115(2) 333, 74 BNS (323, 452, 354 IPC), Police Station- Farah, District Mathura as well as cognizance/ summoning order dated 29.08.2024, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Mathura.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was not arrested during the course of investigation and the charge-sheet has been submitted against him. It is further submitted that the offences are punishable up to 7 years imprisonment.

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

After some arguments, learned counsel for the applicant 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 :- 5.4.2025 MAA/-

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