Disposed¶17

Mohd. Yahyah and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Oct 2025NA528/35634/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing application u/s 528 BNSS No. 35634 of 2025, Mohd. Yahyah v. State of U.P., Allahabad High Court, decided 15.10.2025 — refusal to quash summoning/cognizance order dated 23.06.2025 in CC No. 5920 of 2025 (Case Crime No. 176 of 2024, Ss. 115(2)/352/333/117(2) IPC, PS Jarcha, Gautam Buddha Nagar); disposed of with liberty to file regular bail; bail to be considered per Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51, category A.

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. Prayer to quash the proceedings and summoning order refused. ¶17

Mohd. Yahyah and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5920 of 2025 (arising out of Case Crime No. 176 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 333, 117(2) IPC, PS Jarcha, District Gautam Buddha Nagar) and the cognizance/summoning order dated 23.06.2025 should be quashed.

¶9

Court's answer

The Court refused the applicants' prayer to quash the criminal proceedings and the cognizance/summoning order dated 23.06.2025.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The application was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction.

¶12

Key takeaways

Any bail application filed by the applicants shall be decided in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51 (category A: where charge-sheet has been submitted on appearance, bail may be considered without physical custody or by granting interim bail till the bail application is decided).ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.) refused to quash the cognizance/summoning order dated 23.06.2025 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5920 of 2025 (arising out of Case Crime No. 176 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 333, 117(2) IPC, Police Station Jarcha, District Gautam Buddha Nagar) pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar. The Section 528 BNSS application was disposed of with liberty to the applicants to withdraw it and file a regular bail application before the competent court, with a direction that any such bail application be decided in the light of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51 — category A cases, where the charge-sheet has been submitted on appearance, may be decided without taking the accused into physical custody or by granting interim bail till the bail application is decided.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 35634 of 2025

¶3

Mohd. Yahyah And 2 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Amit Kumar, Vinod Kumar Tirpathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 75

¶7

HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

¶8

Sri Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.N. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶9

The present application under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5920 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 176 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 333, 117(2) of I.P.C., Police StationJarcha, District- Gautam Buddha Nagar as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 23.06.2025, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar.

¶10

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.

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

NA528 No. 35634 of 2025

¶15

¶16

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.

¶17

The application stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.

¶18

October 15, 2025 Ishan

¶19

(Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.)

¶20

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

Mohd. Yahyah and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Yahyah and 2 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