Sonu Maurya and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sonu Maurya and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application withdrawn with liberty to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction; prayer to quash the proceedings and cognizance/summoning order refused; subsequent bail application to be decided in light of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51.

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 892 of 2025 (Case Crime No. 67 of 2025, Sections 191(2), 115(2), 351(2), 352 of B.N.S., Police Station Maharajganj, District Jaunpur) and the cognizance/summoning order dated 22.8.2025 should be quashed.

Court's answer

The applicants' prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 892 of 2025 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 22.8.2025 was refused upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

Ratio / Principle

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

Any bail application filed pursuant to the liberty granted shall be decided in light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51, concerning category (A) accused against whom a charge-sheet has been submitted on appearance.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Court No. 75 (Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.) — Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 37932 of 2025, decided October 17, 2025. Applicants Sonu Maurya and another sought quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 892 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 67 of 2025 under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 351(2), 352 of B.N.S., Police Station Maharajganj, District Jaunpur, together with the cognizance/summoning order dated 22.8.2025 pending before Judicial Magistrate-I, Court No. 17, Jaunpur. It was noted the applicants were not arrested during investigation, the charge-sheet stood submitted, and the offence was punishable up to 7 years. The prayer to quash was refused; counsel withdrew the application with liberty to file a regular bail application, which is to be decided in light of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51 (category (A): charge-sheet submitted on appearance — bail without physical custody or interim bail till decision). Application disposed of with that liberty.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37932 of 2025

Sonu Maurya And Another

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Pradeep Kumar, Ravi Prakash
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 75

HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

Sri Pradeep Kumar-VI, 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. 892 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 67 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 351(2), 352 of B.N.S., Police Station- Maharajganj, District- Jaunpur as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 22.8.2025, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Court No. 17, Jaunpur.

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

NA528 No. 37932 of 2025

2

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 17, 2025 T. Sinha

(Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.)

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