Vinod and Another vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Vinod and Another vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application withdrawn/disposed of with liberty to the applicants to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction; any such bail application to be decided in the light of the observations in Satender Kumar Antil (2022) 10 SCC 51 (Category A).

Issue for consideration

Whether the application under Section 528 BNSS should succeed in quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2138 of 2023 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 16.10.2024, by which cognizance was taken under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, pending before Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Aligarh. +1 more

Court's answer

Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants to quash the complaint proceedings and cognizance/summoning order is, hereby, refused.

Ratio / Principle

Learned counsel for the applicants, after some arguments, sought to withdraw the application, and the court disposed of the application with liberty to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction.

Key takeaways

In case a 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, concerning Category A accused.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Court No. 74), Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J. — Application U/S 528 BNSS No. - 32461 of 2025, decided September 11, 2025. Applicants Vinod and another sought quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2138 of 2023 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 16.10.2024, whereby the learned Magistrate took cognizance under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. (Police Station- Harduwaganj, District Aligarh), pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Aligarh. The applicants' counsel submitted that the offence is punishable up to 7 years imprisonment. Upon considering the facts and circumstances, the prayer to quash was refused. Thereafter, after some arguments, learned counsel withdrew the application with liberty to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction; the High Court directed that any such bail application be decided in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51, relating to Category A (accused against whom charge-sheet has been submitted on appearance, whose bail may be decided without physical custody or by interim bail till decision, with a better exercise of discretion expected in favour of the accused). The application stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 32461 of 2025

Vinod And Another

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Kameshwar Rao, Mandeep Chaudhary
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 74

HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

Supplementary affidavit filed today, which is taken on record.

Sri Kameshwar Rao, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Karunakar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

The present application under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2138 of 2023, as well as cognizance/ summoning order dated 16.10.2024 by which the learned Magistrate took cognizance under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station- Harduwaganj, District Aligarh, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Aligarh.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits 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 applicants is, hereby, refused.

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.

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

NA528 No. 32461 of 2025

2

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.

September 11, 2025 Ishan

(Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.)

Digitally signed by :- ISHAN JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad