Disposed¶17

Shaheed and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2025NA528/36195/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.; September 19, 2025; Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 36195 of 2025; quashing of complaint case; Complaint Case No. 950 of 2024; Khaitunnisha vs. Shaheed & others; Sections 323, 452 IPC; Police Station Farenda; District Maharajganj; cognizance/summoning order; prayer refused; withdrawal with liberty; regular bail application; Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51; Category A; charge-sheet on appearance; bail without physical custody; interim bail.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of with liberty to the applicants to withdraw it and file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction, to be decided in light of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51; the quashing prayer was refused. ¶17

Shaheed and 3 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 Complaint Case No. 950 of 2024 (Khaitunnisha vs. Shaheed & others) under Sections 323, 452 IPC and the cognizance/summoning order dated 05.08.22025 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Farenda, District Maharajganj should be quashed.

¶9

Court's answer

The prayer made by the applicants to quash the complaint proceedings and the cognizance/summoning order is refused.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The applicants' counsel is permitted to withdraw the application 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 made by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 950 of 2024 (Khaitunnisha vs. Shaheed & others) under Sections 323, 452 IPC, Police Station Farenda, District Maharajganj, and the cognizance/summoning order dated 05.08.22025: prayer refused. After arguments, counsel sought and was granted permission to withdraw the application with liberty to file a regular bail application before the competent court; any such bail application is to be decided in light of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51, wherein for Category A accused (charge-sheet submitted on appearance) bail may be considered without physical custody or by granting interim bail till decision. Application disposed of (Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.).

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 36195 of 2025

¶3

Shaheed And 3 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus
State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anand Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 74

¶7

HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

¶8

Heard Sri Anand Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Abhishek Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶9

The present application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 950 of 2024 (Khaitunnisha vs. Shaheed & others), under Sections 323, 452 IPC, Police Station- Farenda, District- Maharajganj as well as cognizance/ summoning order dated 05.08.22025, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Farenda, District Maharajganj.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants submits 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,

¶14

NA528 No. 36195 of 2025

¶15

¶16

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.

¶17

The application stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.

¶18

September 19, 2025

¶19

MAA/-

¶20

(Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.)

¶21

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

Shaheed and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaheed 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