Disposed¶19

Ranjit and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.) – November 25, 2025

Allahabad HC25 Nov 2025NA528/38899/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad HC; Application U/S 528 BNSS 38899 of 2025; Ranjit v. State of U.P.; quashal refused; Criminal Case No. 36683 of 2025; Case Crime No. 301 of 2025; BNS 115(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 333, 351(2), 352; P.S. Majhola, Moradabad; cognizance/summoning order 9.5.2025; Chief Judicial Magistrate; withdrawal with liberty to file regular bail; Satender Kumar Antil (2022) 10 SCC 51 category A; charge-sheet on appearance; bail without physical custody / interim bail; Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.; November 25, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash refused; application withdrawn with liberty to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction. ¶19

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Prayer to quash refused; application withdrawn with liberty to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction.

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 36683 of 2025 (arising out of Case Crime No. 301 of 2025, Sections 115(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 333, 351(2), 352 of B.N.S.) and the cognizance/summoning order dated 9.5.2025 should be granted. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants (quashal of the proceedings and cognizance/summoning order) is refused.

¶13

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, and the application stands disposed of with that liberty.

¶19

Key takeaways

If a regular bail application is filed by the learned counsel for the applicants, it 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.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.) — November 25, 2025 — Application u/s 528 BNSS No. 38899 of 2025 (Ranjit and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another): seeking quashal of entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 36683 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 301 of 2025 (Sections 115(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 333, 351(2), 352 B.N.S., P.S. Majhola, District Moradabad) and cognizance/summoning order dated 9.5.2025, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad. Applicants were not arrested during investigation and a charge-sheet had been submitted; offence punishable up to 7 years. Prayer refused; after some arguments counsel withdrew the application with liberty to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction. Disposal directed that any such bail application be decided in light of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51, wherein the Supreme Court held that for category A accused against whom the charge-sheet has been submitted on appearance, bail may be decided without physical custody or by interim bail till decision, with a better exercise of discretion expected in favour of the accused.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 38899 of 2025

Ranjit And 3 Others

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

¶7

	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Mohammad Zunaid Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 75

¶9

HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

¶10

Sri Mohammad Zunaid Khan, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Alok Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶11

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. 36683 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 301 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 333, 351(2), 352 of B.N.S., Police Station- Majhola, District- Moradabad as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 9.5.2025, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad.

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

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 no. 2, bail applications of such accused against which charge-sheet has been

¶16

NA528 No. 38899 of 2025

¶17

¶18

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.

¶19

The application stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.

¶20

November 25, 2025 T. Sinha

¶21

(Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.)

¶22

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

Ranjit and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjit 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

Similar cases

Banke Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Pankaj Chaurasiya vs State of U.P. and Another

Sachin and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Naresh vs State of U.P. and Another

Ambika and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Laxman and 8 Others vs State of U.P. and Another