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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to withdraw the application and file a regular bail application before a court of competent jurisdiction; the prayer to quash the proceedings and the non-bailable warrant order dated 21.4.2025 was refused; future bail application to be decided per Satender Kumar Antil, (2022) 10 SCC 51.

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2593 of 2005 (State Vs. Ramnarayan), arising out of Case Crime No. 18 of 2005 under Sections 218 of I.P.C., and the non-bailable warrant issued by order dated 21.4.2025 pending before the C.J.M., Etah, should be quashed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. +1 more

Court's answer

Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant to quash the proceedings and the non-bailable warrant order was refused.

Ratio / Principle

After arguments, learned counsel for the applicant opted to withdraw the application with liberty to file a regular bail application before a court of competent jurisdiction, and the application stands disposed of accordingly.

Key takeaways

If a bail application is filed by the applicant's counsel, the same shall be decided in the light of the observations made in the Supreme Court judgment in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51.ratio¶¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.) — APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. 16954 of 2025, decided 15.5.2025. Applicant Ramnarayan sought quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2593 of 2005 (State Vs. Ramnarayan), arising out of Case Crime No. 18 of 2005, under Sections 218 of I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Etah, and of the order dated 21.4.2025 by which a non-bailable warrant was issued pending before the C.J.M., Etah. Counsel submitted that the applicant was not arrested during investigation, a chargesheet was filed, and the offence is punishable up to 7 years. The prayer was refused; counsel then withdrew the application with liberty to file a regular bail application before a court of competent jurisdiction; the application stands disposed of, with any such bail application to be decided in light of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51 (category A).

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:80751

Court No. - 72

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 16954 of 2025

Applicant :- Ramnarayan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Aqueel Ahmad,Vinit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

Heard Sri Vinit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

The present application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2593 of 2005 (State Vs. Ramnarayan) arising out of Case Crime No. 18 of 2005, under Sections 218 of I.P.C., Police StationKotwali Nagar, District- Etah, as well as order dated 21.4.2025 by which non bailable warrant has been issued, pending in the Court of C.J.M., Etah.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant was not arrested during the course of investigation and the chargesheet have been submitted against him. 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 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 applicant, 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 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.

The application stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.

Order Date :- 15.5.2025 A.P. Pandey

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