Dismissed

Shakir v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Oct 2025NA528/35163/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application to quash a Sessions Judge's summons order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in a sessions trial was not pressed by the applicant and dismissed with liberty to seek appropriate remedies before a competent court.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file appropriate application/proceedings before a competent jurisdiction; bail application to be decided as per Satender Kumar Antil observations.

Shakir Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 35163 of 2025

Shakir

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

¶7

	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Salman Ahmad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 75

¶8

HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

¶9

Sri Salman Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Alok Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶10

The present application under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant to quash the order dated 4.6.2025 passed by Sessions Judge, Auraiya in Session Trial No. 102 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 301 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 of I.P.C., Police Station- Dibiyapur, District- Auraiya, whereby the applicant has been summoned under Section 319, Cr.P.C. for trial.

¶11

After some arguments, learned counsel for the applicant does not want to press this application and wants liberty to file appropriate application/proceedings before the court of competent jurisdiction.

¶12

The instant application is dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file appropriate application/proceedings before the court of competent jurisdiction.

¶13

However, in case bail application is filed by the learned counsel for the applicant, 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 no. 2, bail applications of such accused against which chargesheet has been submitted on appearance may be decided without the accused being taken in physical custody or by granting interim bail till the bail

¶14

NA528 No. 35163 of 2025

¶15

¶16

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.

¶17

The application stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.

¶18

October 13, 2025 T. Sinha

¶19

(Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- TRIPTI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shakir v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakir v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases