Disposed¶19

Vinay Kumar and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Oct 2025NA528/35902/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing application; Section 528 Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023; Criminal Case No. 376 of 2025; Case Crime No. 617 of 2024; Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) BNS; Police Station Sasni Gate, Aligarh; cognizance/summoning order dated 17.2.2025; Judicial Magistrate Court No. 3 Aligarh; charge-sheet without arrest; offence punishable up to 7 years; Satender Kumar Antil (2022) 10 SCC 51 category A; regular bail liberty; Vinay Kumar and 4 Others; State of U.P.; Sanjay Kumar Pachori; Court No. 75.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of; liberty to withdraw and file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction, to be decided in the light of the observations in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51. ¶19

Vinay Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 376 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 617 of 2024 (Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) BNS, Police Station Sasni Gate, District Aligarh), together with the cognizance/summoning order dated 17.2.2025, should be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS 2023.

¶11

Court's answer

Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicants' prayer to quash the proceedings and the cognizance/summoning order is refused.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

After arguments, 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.

¶14

Key takeaways

Any bail application filed by the applicants' counsel shall be decided in the light of the Supreme Court's observations in Satender Kumar Antil (2022) 10 SCC 51: for category-A accused against whom the charge-sheet has been submitted on appearance, bail may be decided without taking the accused into physical custody or by granting interim bail till the bail application is decided.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.), Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 35902 of 2025, Vinay Kumar and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another, decided October 29, 2025. The applicants sought quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 376 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 617 of 2024 (Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) BNS, Police Station Sasni Gate, District Aligarh), and of the cognizance/summoning order dated 17.2.2025 of the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Aligarh. The prayer was refused; on withdrawal, counsel was given liberty to file a regular bail application before the competent court, to be decided per Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51 — category-A accused (charge-sheeted on appearance) may be bailed without physical custody or via interim bail till decision.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 35902 of 2025

¶3

Vinay Kumar And 4 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of U.P. and Another

¶7

	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Najam Uz Zaman Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 75

¶9

HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

¶10

Sri Najam Uz Zaman Khan, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri B.N. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶11

The present application under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicants to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 376 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 617 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) of BNS, Police Station- Sasni Gate, District- Aligarh as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 17.2.2025, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Aligarh.

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

NA528 No. 35902 of 2025

¶17

¶18

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.

¶19

The application stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.

¶20

October 29, 2025 T. Sinha

¶21

(Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.)

¶22

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

Vinay Kumar and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Kumar and 4 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