Urman and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Urman and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to withdraw the quashing application and to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction; any such bail application shall be decided in the light of the Supreme Court's observations in Satender Kumar Antil (Category A).

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 15071 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 64 of 2025 under Sections 110, 115(2), 118(1), 352 of B.N.S., and the cognizance/summoning order dated 20.6.2025 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Budaun, should be quashed. +1 more

Court's answer

Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicants' prayer (to quash the proceedings and the cognizance/summoning order) was refused; however, after further arguments the application was withdrawn and disposed of, so this refusal did not stand as the final disposition.

Ratio / Principle

After some arguments, learned counsel for the applicants sought to withdraw the application with liberty to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction, and the application stands disposed of with that liberty.

Key takeaways

If a 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 (Category A: bail applications of accused against whom a 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).ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.; October 27, 2025) disposed of an application under S. 528 BNSS (No. 36452 of 2025) by Urman and 3 others seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 15071 of 2025 (arising out of Case Crime No. 64 of 2025, under Sections 110, 115(2), 118(1), 352 of B.N.S., corresponding to Sections 308, 323, 324, 504 IPC), P.S. Ughaiti, District Budaun, and the cognizance/summoning order dated 20.6.2025 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (JD) Court No. 7/Judicial Magistrate, Budaun. The applicants had not been arrested during investigation and a charge-sheet was filed; the offence is punishable up to 7 years. The quashing prayer was initially refused, whereafter counsel withdrew the application with liberty to file a regular bail application, and the application stood disposed of with that liberty. Any bail application so filed is to be decided in the light of the Supreme Court's observations in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51 (Category A: release without physical custody or interim bail till decision for charge-sheeted accused appearing without arrest).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 36452 of 2025

Urman And 3 Others

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Nagendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 75

HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

Sri Nagendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Chhavi Pal Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

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. 15071 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 64 of 2025, under Sections 110, 115(2), 118(1), 352 of B.N.S. (Sections 308, 323, 324, 504 of I.P.C.), Police Station- Ughaiti, District- Budaun as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 20.6.2025, pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. 7/Judicial Magistrate, Budaun.

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.

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

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.

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

NA528 No. 36452 of 2025

2

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 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.

The application stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.

October 27, 2025 T. Sinha

(Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.)

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