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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Main prayer for quashing/refusal of interference declined (prayer of the applicants refused); however, the Court directed that any bail application filed by the applicants within 30 days shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously in light of Satender Kumar Antil (2021) 10 SCC 773, and that no coercive measures be taken against the applicants for 30 days or until such bail application is filed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet dated 19.07.2022 and the cognizance order dated 02.03.2024 (offences u/s 504, 336, 308 I.P.C., Case Crime No. 105 of 2022, Criminal Case No. 251 of 2024, P.S. Dadon, Aligarh) warrant interference under Section 528 B.N.S.S., i.e., whether prima facie no offence is made out against the applicants.

Court's answer

On the material on record, at this stage it cannot be said that prima facie no offence is made out against the applicants.

Ratio / Principle

The submissions raised only disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated under Section 528 B.N.S.S.; that power is confined to cases of failure of justice, misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, or an incorrect sentence/order to prevent abuse of process or miscarriage of justice.

Key takeaways

Accordingly, no interference is required with the charge sheet, cognizance order or pending criminal case.ratio¶10
If 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 vs. CBI, (2021) 10 SCC 773.ratio¶12
No coercive measures shall be taken against the applicants for a period of 30 days from the date of the order or until they apply for bail before the court concerned.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble Nand Prabha Shukla, J.) disposed of an application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. (No. 31624 of 2025) by Satish Balmiki and another challenging the charge sheet dated 19.07.2022 and the cognizance order dated 02.03.2024 for offences u/s 504, 336, 308 I.P.C. arising out of Case Crime No. 105 of 2022 (State vs. Satish Balmiki), along with proceedings of Criminal Case No. 251 of 2024, Police Station Dadon, District Aligarh, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Aligarh. Holding that prima facie an offence was made out and that the submissions related to disputed questions of fact incapable of adjudication under Section 528 B.N.S.S., the Court found no failure of justice or misuse of process warranting intervention and refused the prayer. It nevertheless directed that a bail application filed within 30 days be decided expeditiously in the light of Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI, (2021) 10 SCC 773, and that no coercive measures be taken against the applicants for 30 days or till such bail application is filed.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 31624 of 2025

Satish Balmiki And Another

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Deepak Yadav, Vandana Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 78

HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

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

The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been preferred challenging the charge sheet dated 19.07.2022 as well as order dated 02.03.2024 taking cognizance of the offences u/s 504, 336, 308 I.P.C. arising out of Case Crime No. 105 of 2022 (State vs. Satish Balmiki) along with the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 251 of 2024, Police Station Dadon, District Aligarh, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Aligarh.

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 B.N.S.S. 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 court within 30 days from today, the same shall be considered and disposed

NA528 No. 31624 of 2025

2

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 B.N.S.S. is disposed of.

(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)

September 9, 2025

Gss

Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad