Disposed¶13

Hariprakash Rai and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 May 2025NA528/16474/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS quashing application dismissed by refusal of prayer and permitted withdrawal; Case Crime No. 5 of 2025, Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 110, 3(5) BNS, P.S. Ahiraula, Azamgarh; cognizance/summoning order 19.3.2025 by ACJM Court No. 13 Azamgarh; charge-sheet without arrest; offence punishable up to 7 years; liberty for regular bail; Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51 category A guidelines; Justice Sanjay Kumar Pachori; order dated 23.5.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:87926.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; application permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction, to be decided in light of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51. ¶13

Hariprakash Rai and 4 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 the Criminal Case arising out of Case Crime No. 5 of 2025 (Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 110, 3(5) B.N.S.) and the cognizance/summoning order dated 19.3.2025 should be quashed.

¶7

Court's answer

On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicants' prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings and the cognizance/summoning order is refused.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The application is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the applicants to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction.

¶10

Key takeaways

If a bail application is filed, it shall be decided in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51, i.e., for category (A) accused against whom a charge-sheet has been submitted on appearance, the bail application may be decided without taking the accused into physical custody or by granting interim bail till decision.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.), Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 16474 of 2025, decided 23.5.2025 [Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:87926]: Application under Section 528 BNSS to quash the entire proceedings of the Criminal Case arising out of Case Crime No. 5 of 2025 under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 110, 3(5) of the B.N.S., P.S. Ahiraula, District Azamgarh, and the cognizance/summoning order dated 19.3.2025 passed by A.C.J.M., Court No. 13, Azamgarh. Held: prayer refused on consideration of facts and circumstances; on the applicants' counsel seeking withdrawal, the application was disposed of with liberty to file a regular bail application before the competent court, such bail application to be decided in light of the category (A) observations in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51 (charge-sheet submitted on appearance; bail may be considered without physical custody or with interim bail till decision).

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:87926

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 16474 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Hariprakash Rai And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Anurag Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Chhavi Pal Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

The present application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case arising out of Case Crime No. 5 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 110, 3(5) of B.N.S., Police Station- Ahiraula, District- Azamgarh, as well as cognizance/ summoning order 19.3.2025, pending in the Court of A.C.J.M., Court No. 13, Azamgarh.

¶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 judgment 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

¶12

bail application is decided. It has been observed that at the cost of repetition, we wish to state that, in category A, one would expect 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.

¶14

Order Date :- 23.5.2025 A.P. Pandey

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hariprakash Rai and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariprakash Rai and 4 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