Raj Kumar Vishwakarma and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Raj Kumar Vishwakarma and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction; any such bail application to be decided in the light of Satender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. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., (2022) 10 SCC 51 (Category A).

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 33736 of 2023 (arising out of Case Crime No. 502 of 2022, under Sections 427, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Badagaon, District Varanasi) and the cognizance/summoning order dated 16.3.2023 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Varanasi should be quashed.

Court's answer

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

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.

Key takeaways

In case 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 v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., (2022) 10 SCC 51 (Category A).ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.), Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 37306 of 2025, decided November 13, 2025 — Raj Kumar Vishwakarma and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another. Application under S. 528 BNSS to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 33736 of 2023 (arising out of Case Crime No. 502 of 2022, under Ss. 427, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Badagaon, District Varanasi) and the cognizance/summoning order dated 16.3.2023, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Varanasi. Counsel submitted that the applicants were not arrested during investigation and a charge-sheet stood submitted, the offence being punishable up to 7 years. The prayer to quash was refused; on further argument counsel was permitted 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. Any such bail application is to be decided in the light of the Supreme Court's observations in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., (2022) 10 SCC 51 (Category A).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37306 of 2025

Raj Kumar Vishwakarma And 2 Others

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		...	..Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Sunil Kumar Vishwakarma	Yadav,	Vishal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 75

HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

Sri Sunil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Puspraj Singh, learned brief holder 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. 33736 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 502 of 2022, under Sections 427, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C., Police StationBadagaon, District- Varanasi as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 16.3.2023, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Varanasi.

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 Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51 , wherein the Supreme Court considering the category(A) as mentioned in the paragraph

NA528 No. 37306 of 2025

2

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.

November 13, 2025 T. Sinha

(Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.)

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