Roshanlal Alias Roshan and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Roshanlal Alias Roshan and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing prayer refused (application disposed of). Interim protections directed: (i) any bail application filed by the applicants within 30 days to be considered and disposed of expeditiously per the law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2021) 10 SCC 773; (ii) no coercive measures against the applicants for 30 days or until the bail application is filed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the prayer to quash the impugned revision order dated 24.03.2025 (Criminal Revision No. 184 of 2024, arising out of the summoning order dated 27.07.2023 under Sections 452, 323 IPC) should be granted under Section 528 BNSS.

Court's answer

At this stage it cannot be said that prima facie no offence is made out against the applicants; all submissions at the bar relate to disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated by this Court under Section 528 BNSS.

Ratio / Principle

The prayer of the applicants is accordingly refused; no interference with the impugned order is required.

Key takeaways

The power under Section 528 BNSS may be exercised only in cases where the Court finds failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, or where the sentence or order was not correct, i.e., to prevent abuse of process or miscarriage of justice.obiter¶9
In case the applicants apply for bail before the concerned court within 30 days, the bail application shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773.ratio¶14
For a period of 30 days from the date of the order, or till the time of applying the bail application before the court concerned, no coercive measures shall be taken against the applicants.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 80), Nand Prabha Shukla, J.; decided October 15, 2025. Application u/s 528 BNSS No. 27998 of 2025 by Roshanlal @ Roshan and 6 others seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Mathura in Criminal Revision No. 184 of 2024 (Roshanlal and others v. State of U.P. and another), arising out of the summoning order dated 27.07.2023 of the Judicial Magistrate, Chhata, Mathura in Complaint Case No. 711 of 2020 (Purushottam v. Roshanlal and others) under Sections 452, 323 IPC, P.S. Chhata. Held: a prima facie offence is made out; the submissions raise disputed questions of fact not adjudicable under Section 528 BNSS, whose exercise is confined to preventing failure of justice or misuse of process. Prayer refused; no interference. Directions: bail application, if filed within 30 days, to be considered expeditiously in light of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2021) 10 SCC 773; and interim immunity from coercive measures for 30 days or till the bail application is made.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 27998 of 2025

Roshanlal Alias Roshan And 6 Others

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)		: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: G.A.

Court No. - 80

HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions, Judge, Court No. 4, Mathura in Criminal Revision No. 184 of 2024 (Roshanlal and others v. State of U.P. and another) arising out of summoning order dated 27.07.2023 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Chhata, District Mathura in Complaint Case No. 711 of 2020 (Purushottam v. Roshanlal and others) under Sections 452, 323 IPC, Police Station-Chhata, District-Mathura.

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that prima facie no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 528 BNSS. Only in cases, where the Court finds that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order was not correct, this power may be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of miscarriage of justice. Therefore, no interference is required.

Accordingly, prayer of the applicants is refused.

However, considering the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants, it is directed that in case the applicants apply for bail before the concerned

NA528 No. 27998 of 2025

2

court within 30 days from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773 .

For a period of 30 days from today or till the time of applying the bail application before the court concerned, no coercive measures shall be taken against the applicants.

With the above observations, this application under Section 528 BNSS is disposed of.

(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)

October 15, 2025

Aditya Tripathi

Digitally signed by :- ADITYA TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad