Sachin Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Oct 2025NA528/25044/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS quashing application; charge sheet 07.12.2024 and cognizance order 25.04.2025 not pressed; relief refused; expeditious bail direction; surrender within three weeks; interim protection from coercive action; Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI 2021 SCC OnLine SC 922 applied; BNS 115(2), 352, 117(2), 324(3); SC/ST Act 3(2)(va), 3(1); Case Crime No.0329 of 2024; S.T. No.532 of 2025; P.S. Talbehat, District Lalitpur; Allahabad High Court; Deepak Verma, J.; disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Main quashing relief refused as not pressed on merit; alternative prayer allowed: applicant to surrender before the Court below within three weeks, any bail application to be decided expeditiously in accordance with Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2021 SCC OnLine SC 922), and no coercive action for three weeks or until surrender, whichever earlier.

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the application seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 07.12.2024, the cognizance order dated 25.04.2025 and the entire proceedings of S.T. No.532 of 2025 should be granted. +1 more

¶¶10

Court's answer

The relief sought in the application (quashing of the charge sheet, cognizance order and ensuing proceedings) was refused, as the applicant chose not to press it on merit.

¶¶6

Ratio / Principle

The applicant was directed to surrender before the concerned Court below within three weeks, and if he applies for bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with the law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2021 SCC OnLine SC 922).

¶¶17

Key takeaways

For three weeks from the order, or until surrender of the applicant before the Court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action was to be taken against him.ratio¶¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Deepak Verma, J.), Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 25044 of 2025, Sachin Yadav v. State of U.P. and Anr., decided October 7, 2025. The applicant sought quashing of the charge sheet dated 07.12.2024, cognizance order dated 25.04.2025 and entire proceedings of S.T. No.532 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No.0329 of 2024 under B.N.S. Sections 115(2), 352, 117(2), 324(3) and SC/ST Act Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1), P.S. Talbehat, District Lalitpur. Counsel for the applicant did not press the relief on merit; the relief was accordingly refused. On the alternative prayer (unopposed), the Court directed surrender before the Court below within three weeks, expeditious disposal of any bail application in accordance with the law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 922, and that no coercive action be taken for three weeks or until surrender, whichever earlier. Application disposed of.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 25044 of 2025

¶3

Sachin Yadav

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Hanuman Prasad Kushwaha
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 74

¶7

HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

¶8

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has filed counter affidavit today in the Court, which is taken on record.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶10

This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant to quash the charge sheet dated 07.12.2024 and cognizance order dated 25.04.2025 as well as entire proceedings of S.T. No.532 of 2025 (State Vs. Sachin Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No.0329 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 117(2), 324(3) of B.N.S. and Section 3(2) (va), 3(1), r.s. of SC/ST Act, Police Station Talbehat, District Lalitpur.

¶11

On the matter being taken up, learned counsel for the applicant has not pressed the relief as sought by means of this application on merit and prayed for issuance of appropriate direction to the concerned Courts below to decide the bail application of the applicant expeditiously.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 have no objection in allowing the aforesaid prayer of the applicant.

¶13

Accordingly, the relief as sought by the applicant through this application is refused.

¶14

Considering the aforesaid alternative prayer of the applicant, it is

¶15

NA528 No. 25044 of 2025

¶16

¶17

directed that applicant shall surrender before the concerned Court below within three weeks from today and in case apply for bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 922.

¶18

For the period of three weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicant before the Court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶19

With the aforesaid directions, this application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. stands disposed of.

¶20

(Deepak Verma,J.)

¶21

October 7, 2025

¶22

Mini

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MINI KANAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sachin Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Yadav 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