Pankaj Saini and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Pankaj Saini and 2 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Prayer to quash refused; application permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction, such bail application to be decided in light of the observations in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51.

Issue for consideration

Whether the application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 12974 of 2024 (arising out of Case Crime No. 692 of 2024, Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 324(4), 117(2) B.N.S., P.S. Majhhola, District Moradabad) and the cognizance/summoning order dated 11.11.2024 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad should be allowed.

Court's answer

On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicants' prayer to quash the proceedings and the cognizance/summoning order is 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

The application stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.ratio¶17
Direction that any bail application subsequently filed by the applicants' counsel shall be decided in the light of the Supreme Court's observations in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51 (per that judgment's Category A, charge-sheeted accused who appeared may have bail decided without physical custody or by interim bail). The Category A content is the quoted Supreme Court material; this court's contribution is the directive attaching it to the future bail application.obiter¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Court No. 75; Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.), by order dated November 10, 2025 in Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 39381 of 2025 (Pankaj Saini and 2 others v. State of U.P. and another): an application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 12974 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 692 of 2024 under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 324(4), 117(2) of B.N.S., Police Station- Majhhola, District- Moradabad, and the cognizance/summoning order dated 11.11.2024 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad, was refused. Counsel for the applicants (who had not been arrested during investigation and against whom the charge-sheet stood submitted, the offence being punishable up to 7 years) was permitted to withdraw the application with liberty to seek regular bail before the competent forum; any such bail application is to be decided in light of the Supreme Court's observations in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51, whose Category A contemplates that bail applications of accused against whom charge-sheets have been filed on appearance may be decided without physical custody or by interim bail.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 39381 of 2025

Pankaj Saini And 2 Others

.....Applicant(s)

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

Court No. - 75

HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

Sri Rajendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Alok Mishra, 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. 12974 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 692 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 324(4), 117(2) of B.N.S., Police Station- Majhhola, District- Moradabad as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 11.11.2024, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad.

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 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

NA528 No. 39381 of 2025

2

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 10, 2025 T. Sinha

(Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.)

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