Disposed¶16

Ram Badan Saroj and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Oct 2025NA528/33829/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS 2023 quashing application; quashing of criminal proceedings and cognizance/summoning order dated 02.06.2025; Criminal Case No. 27700 of 2025; Case Crime No. 334 of 2024; Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 117(2) IPC; Police Station Deogaon, District Azamgarh; ACJM Court No. 10 Azamgarh; charge-sheet submitted without arrest; offence punishable up to 7 years; prayer refused; withdrawal with liberty to file regular bail; Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51 category A; bail without physical custody; interim bail; disposed of October 13, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to withdraw the application and file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction; any such bail application to be decided in light of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51. ¶16

Ram Badan Saroj and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 27700 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 334 of 2024, and the cognizance/summoning order dated 02.06.2025 should be quashed.

¶8

Court's answer

Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the court refused the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

Learned counsel for the applicants was permitted to withdraw the application with liberty to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction.

¶11

Key takeaways

In case a bail application is filed by the applicants, it shall be decided in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51.ratio¶12
The application stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.) — Application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 27700 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 334 of 2024 under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 117(2) IPC, Police Station Deogaon, District Azamgarh, and the cognizance/summoning order dated 02.06.2025 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, Azamgarh. Counsel submitted that the applicants were never arrested, the charge-sheet stands submitted, and the offence is punishable up to 7 years. The court refused the quashing prayer but, on counsel's request, permitted withdrawal with liberty to file a regular bail application, directing that any such bail application be decided in the light of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51 (category A: where a charge-sheet is submitted on appearance, bail may be considered without physical custody or with interim bail). Application disposed of on October 13, 2025.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 33829 of 2025

¶3

Ram Badan Saroj And 3 Others

¶4

	Versus .....	Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Brijesh Kumar Yadav,	Ranjana
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 75

¶6

HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

¶7

Heard Ms. Ranjana, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Sri Rahul Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

The present application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 27700 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 334 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 117(2) of I.P.C., Police Station-Deogaon, DistrictAzamgarh as well as cognizance/ summoning order dated 02.06.2025, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, Azamgarh.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants were not arrested during the course of investigation and the charge-sheet have been submitted against them. It is further submitted that the offence is punishable up to 7 years imprisonment.

¶10

Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants is, hereby, refused.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

NA528 No. 33829 of 2025

¶14

¶15

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.

¶16

The application stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.

¶17

October 13, 2025

¶18

MAA/-

¶19

(Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AZAD ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Badan Saroj and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Badan Saroj and 3 Others 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