Disposed¶18

Rajendra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Oct 2025NA528/39432/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS quashing application disposed; prayer refused; disputed questions of fact not adjudicable; prima facie test per R.P. Kapur AIR 1960 SC 866, Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, P.P. Sharma 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, Zandu Pharmaceutical 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283; surrender and bail within thirty days per Satender Kumar Antil 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825; no coercive action for thirty days; Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 Sections 9, 51; Case Crime No.413 of 2015; P.S. Chowk, Maharajganj; A.C.J.M. Maharajganj.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash the charge-sheet/proceedings and to stay them refused; applicants directed to surrender and apply for bail within thirty days, to be considered per Satender Kumar Antil (2022 SCC OnLine SC 825); no coercive action against applicants for thirty days; no further time allowed for surrender. ¶18

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge-sheet and the entire proceedings of Case No.4525 of 2016 (arising out of Case Crime No.413 of 2015 under Sections 9, 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972) should be quashed under Section 528 BNSS. +2 more

¶9

Court's answer

All submissions made at the bar relate to disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 528 BNSS; at this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur, Bhajan Lal, P.P. Sharma and Zandu Pharmaceutical.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

On a perusal of the material on record, at this stage it cannot be said that the offences levelled against the applicants are not made out; hence the prayer to quash the proceedings and to stay them is refused.

¶12

Key takeaways

If the applicants surrender before the court below and apply for bail within thirty days, the bail application shall be considered and decided by the Court concerned in terms of the law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825.ratio¶16
For a period of thirty days from the date of the order, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.ratio¶16
No further time beyond the thirty-day period shall be allowed to the applicants to surrender and apply for bail before the Court concerned.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.) disposed of an application under Section 528 BNSS filed by Rajendra and 2 others seeking quashing of the charge-sheet and the entire proceedings of Case No.4525 of 2016 (arising out of Case Crime No.413 of 2015 under Sections 9, 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, P.S. Chowk, District Maharajganj, pending before A.C.J.M., Maharajganj) and a stay of those proceedings. The Court held that the applicants' submissions raised disputed questions of fact not adjudicable under Section 528 BNSS, that only a prima facie view was required in the light of R.P. Kapur (AIR 1960 SC 866), State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Cr.) 426), State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma (1992 SCC (Cr.) 192) and Zandu Pharmaceutical (2005 SCC (Cr.) 283), and that the offences were prima facie made out; the prayer was therefore refused. The applicants were directed to surrender and apply for bail within thirty days, to be considered in terms of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022 SCC OnLine SC 825); no coercive action was to be taken for thirty days, and no further time was allowed for surrender.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 39432 of 2025

¶3

Rajendra And 2 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

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

¶6

Court No. - 78

¶7

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶9

This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.4525 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No.413 of 2015 under Sections 9, 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, Police Station- Chowk, District- Maharajganj pending in the Court of A.C.J.M., Maharajganj. Further prayer has been made to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶10

It is submitted by the learned counsel of the applicant that the FIR has been lodged on false grounds while the applicant has not committed any offence. The police has also submitted charge sheet on the basis of insufficient evidence against the applicant. Essential ingredients to constitute the offences alleged are lacking. The present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention. Learned counsel for the applicant pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶11

4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer.

¶12

From the perusal of the record, I find no reason to quash the proceedings of the criminal case filed against the applicant or to stay the proceedings. As is evident, all the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 528 BNSS. At this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 . From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that offences levelled against the applicants are not made out. Hence, prayer made in the application is refused.

¶13

In the last, learned counsel for the applicants has urged that direction for expeditious disposal of the bail application of the applicants be given.

¶14

NA528 No. 39432 of 2025

¶15

¶16

Hence, it is observed that in case the applicants surrender before the court below and apply for bail within thirty days from today, the same shall be considered and decided by the Court concerned in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825 . For a period of thirty days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶17

It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicants to surrender and apply for bail before the Court concerned.

¶18

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of .

¶19

October 10, 2025 Fhd

¶20

(Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)

¶21

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajendra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra and 2 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Susheel Kumar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohammd Iqbal and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Adesh Kumar vs State of U.P.

Nadeem Alias Saleem vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanju Verma vs State of U.P.

Lokesh vs State of U.P.