Disposed¶16

Om Prakash and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Sept 2025NA528/36376/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 36376 of 2025; Om Prakash & 3 others vs State of U.P. & another; Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.; quashing of complaint case; Complaint Case No. 817 of 2023; Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC; P.S. Nevadhiya, District Jaunpur; cognizance/summoning order 21.06.2025; offences punishable up to 7 years; prayer refused; withdrawal with liberty to file regular bail; Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51; Category A; charge-sheet on appearance; bail without physical custody or interim bail; disposed of; September 23, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to withdraw the application and to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction; any such bail application to be decided in the light of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51. ¶16

Om Prakash and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 817 of 2023 under Sections 323, 504 & 506 IPC and the cognizance/summoning order dated 21.06.2025 ought to be quashed under Section 528 BNSS.

¶8

Court's answer

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

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The application was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction.

¶11

Key takeaways

If a regular bail application is filed by the applicants' counsel, it shall be decided in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing application under S. 528 BNSS seeking quashment of entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 817 of 2023 (Anil Kumar vs. Om Prakash & others) under Sections 323, 504 & 506 IPC, P.S. Nevadhiya, District Jaunpur, and the cognizance/summoning order dated 21.06.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.) Fast Track Court/ACJM, Jaunpur. Held: prayer for quashing refused on merits of facts and circumstances; thereafter, on counsel's request, application permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file a regular bail application before the competent court. Any such bail application to be decided in the light of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51, wherein (Category A, para 2) bail applications of accused against whom charge-sheet has been submitted on appearance may be decided without taking the accused into physical custody or by granting interim bail. Application disposed of (Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.), September 23, 2025.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 36376 of 2025

¶3

Om Prakash And 3 Others

¶4

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)		: Ram Kumar Prajapati
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 74

¶6

HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

¶7

Heard Sri R.K. Prajapati, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Karunakar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

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. 817 of 2023 (Anil Kumar vs. Om Prakash & others), under Sections 323, 504 & 506 of I.P.C., Police Station- Nevadhiya, District- Jaunpur as well as cognizance/ summoning order 21.06.2025, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Fast Track Court/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the offences are punishable up to 7 years imprisonment.

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

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,

¶13

NA528 No. 36376 of 2025

¶14

¶15

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.

¶16

The application stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.

¶17

September 23, 2025

¶18

MAA/-

¶19

(Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.)

¶20

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

Om Prakash and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash 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