Disposed¶13

Ajmeri Khan and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Apr 2025NA528/10322/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS quashing application dismissed by refusal of prayer then permitted withdrawal with liberty; charge-sheet filed without arrest; offence punishable up to 7 years; Case Crime No. 223 of 2024, P.S. Mursan, District Hathras; BNS Sections 191(2), 191(3), 333, 125, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 110 (IPC 147, 148, 452, 336, 323, 504, 506, 308); regular bail liberty guided by Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51 Category A; disposed 5.4.2025; Allahabad High Court; single judge Sanjay Kumar Pachori.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of; prayer to quash proceedings refused; liberty granted to withdraw and 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. ¶13

Ajmeri Khan and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Case No. 39 of 2025 (State Vs. Dilshad & others), arising out of Case Crime No. 223 of 2024, P.S. Mursan, District Hathras, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras, should be quashed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023.

¶7

Court's answer

On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicants' prayer for quashing the proceedings was refused.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

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

¶10

Key takeaways

If a bail application is filed by the applicants' counsel, it shall be decided in the light of the Supreme Court's observations in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51, that for Category A accused (charge-sheeted on appearance without arrest), the bail application may be decided without physical custody or by granting interim bail till decision.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.) — Application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 39 of 2025 (State Vs. Dilshad & others), arising out of Case Crime No. 223 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 333, 125, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 110 B.N.S. (147, 148, 452, 336, 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC), P.S. Mursan, District Hathras, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras. Applicants were not arrested during investigation and a charge-sheet had been submitted against them; the offence was stated to be punishable up to 7 years imprisonment. The Court refused the quashing prayer but permitted withdrawal of the application with liberty to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction, directing that any such bail application be decided in the light of the Supreme Court's observations in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51 (Category A — accused against whom charge-sheet has been submitted on appearance may be released without physical custody or on interim bail till the bail application is decided). Application disposed of.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:48324

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10322 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Ajmeri Khan And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Karan Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶6

Sri Karan Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Abhishek Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

The present application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 39 of 2025 (State Vs. Dilshad & others), arising out of Case Crime No. 223 of 2024, under Sections 191 (2), 191(3), 333, 125, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 110 B.N.S. (147, 148, 452, 336, 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC), P.S. Mursan, District Hathras, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras.

¶8

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.

¶9

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

¶10

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.

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

The application stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. Order Date :- 5.4.2025 MAA/-

¶14

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

Ajmeri Khan and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajmeri Khan and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases