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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing prayer refused; application permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction, to be decided in light of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10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. 27 of 2023 (arising out of Case Crime No. 24 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Mauaima, District Prayagraj) and the cognizance/summoning order dated 11.1.2023 pending before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, should be quashed.

Court's answer

The applicants' prayer to quash the criminal proceedings and the cognizance/summoning order was refused.

Ratio / Principle

After some 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

Any bail application subsequently filed by the applicants 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¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.), decision dated October 17, 2025 — Application under Section 528 BNSS (No. 38001 of 2025) by Arbaaz and 3 others seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 27 of 2023 (arising out of Case Crime No. 24 of 2021, Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Mauaima, District Prayagraj) and the cognizance/summoning order dated 11.1.2023 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad. The applicants had not been arrested during investigation and a charge-sheet stood submitted; the offence was punishable up to 7 years imprisonment. The quashing prayer was refused; after arguments, counsel was permitted to withdraw the application with liberty to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction, any such application to be decided in light of the Supreme Court's observations in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51 (category A: accused against whom charge-sheet has been submitted on appearance may be considered without physical custody or by granting interim bail till the bail application is decided). Application disposed of accordingly.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 38001 of 2025

Arbaaz And 3 Others

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Bijendra Kumar Tripathi, Lokesh Kumar Mishra : G.A.

Court No. - 75

HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

Sri Lokesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri B.N. Upadhyay, 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. 27 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 24 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station- Mauaima, District- Prayagraj as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 11.1.2023, pending in the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad.

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. 38001 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 17, 2025 T. Sinha

(Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.)

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