Bhudev Sing Indolia Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 33942 of 2025

Bhudev Sing Indolia		.....Applicant(s)
	Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	Kuldeep Singh Chahar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.

¶3

Court No. - 76

¶4

HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mohit Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 & 3 and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

The present application has been filed by applicant for quashing the impugned order dated 08.08.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Agra in Criminal Case No.17350 of 2025 (State Vs. Pravesh Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No.149 of 2025 under Sections 80(2), 85 B.N.S. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Malpura, District Agra.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant was granted anticipatory bail by this Court by order dated 23.5.2025 till submission of charge sheet. Learned counsel for applicant submits that charge sheet was submitted on 12.7.2025. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that application was moved by accused-opposite party nos.2 and 3 for extension of anticipatory bail granted by this Court. It is further submitted by learned counsel for applicant that by means of impugned order dated 8.8.2025 application dated 8.8.2025 has been accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra and the process issued to the police personnel for appearance of accused-opposite parties have been recalled. Learned counsel for applicant submits that C.J.M., Agra does not have power to grant anticipatory bail nor has the power to extend the limited anticipatory bail granted by this Court by order dated 23.5.2025. Learned counsel for applicant further submits that impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction.

¶8

Learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3 could not dispute the fact that impugned order could not have been passed by the C.J.M., Agra. However, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3 has relied upon paragraph 38(i) of the judgment of this Court passed in Application U/S 528 BNSS No.6400 of 2025 (Smt. Bacchi Devi Vs. State of U.P. and another); 2025:AHC:136034, to submit that as per direction in Smt.

¶9

NA528 No. 33942 of 2025

¶10

2

¶11

Bacchi Devi (supra), the trial court was required to permit the applicant to furnish the personal bond as the applicant had co-operated in the investigation. Paragraph 38(i) of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereinbelow:

¶12

38(i) All District Judges shall ensure that, in cases where the charge-sheet has been filed without arrest- whether because custodial interrogation was not effected during investigation by Investigating Officer, or the accused had secured anticipatory bail/protective orders under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 528 of the BNSS and duly cooperated during investigation- the trial court shall not remand the accused to judicial custody upon appearance pursuant to summons, nor insist upon filing of regular or anticipatory bail applications. The accused shall be permitted to appear and furnish a personal bond at the first instance, in terms of Musheer Alam (supra) and Satender Kumar Antil (supra)5. The requirement of surety under Section 91 BNSS may be considered subsequently at the court's discretion to ensure appearance of the accused.

¶13

At this stage, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3 submits that he may be permitted to prefer an application before the court concerned in terms of direction issued in Smt. Bacchi Devi (supra) and the matter may be remanded back.

¶14

Learned AGA has no objection.

¶15

Learned counsel for applicant has also no objection.

¶16

In view of stand taken by learned counsel for parties, the impugned order dated 8.08.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Agra in Criminal Case No.17350 of 2025 (State Vs. Pravesh Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No.149 of 2025 under Sections 80(2), 85 B.N.S. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial court with liberty to opposite party nos.2 and 3 to prefer an application in terms of Section 228 BNSS or in terms of judgment of this Court passed in Smt. Bacchi Devi (supra). If any such application is filed, the trial court would oblige in law and decide the same in accordance with law.

¶17

Accordingly, the application under Section 528 BNSS is disposed of.

¶18

(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)

¶19

September 8, 2025 D. Tamang

¶20

Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA TAMANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bhudev Sing Indolia v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhudev Sing Indolia v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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