Disposed¶19

Ashok Kumar Khare and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2025NA528/40004/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing application under Section 528 BNSS to quash Criminal Case No. 8856 of 2023 / Case Crime No. 422 of 2022 (Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, Jhansi) and cognizance/summoning order dated 17.05.2023 before CJM Jhansi — prayer refused; withdrawal permitted with liberty to file regular bail; future bail application to be decided per Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51 category A; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.; disposed of on November 19, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash refused; application permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction, to be decided in light of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10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. ¶19

Ashok Kumar Khare and Another vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 8856 of 2023 (arising out of Case Crime No. 422 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Jhansi) and the cognizance/summoning order dated 17.05.2023 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi should be quashed. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

The prayer of the applicants to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 8856 of 2023 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 17.05.2023 is refused.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to withdraw the application with liberty to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction.

¶14

Key takeaways

If a regular bail application is filed by the applicants, it shall be decided in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.) — Application u/s 528 BNSS (No. 40004 of 2025) by Ashok Kumar Khare and another to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 8856 of 2023 (Case Crime No. 422 of 2022, Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Jhansi) and the cognizance/summoning order dated 17.05.2023 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi. Held: prayer refused; after arguments, counsel allowed to withdraw the application with liberty to file a regular bail application before the competent court; any such bail application to be decided in light of the Supreme Court's observations in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51 (category A — accused against whom charge-sheet has been submitted on appearance; bail may be considered without physical custody or by granting interim bail). Application disposed of, November 19, 2025.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 40004 of 2025

¶3

Ashok Kumar Khare And Another

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of U.P. and Another

¶7

	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Dileep Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 75

¶9

HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

¶10

Sri Dileep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Karunakar Singh, 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 applicant to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 8856 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 422 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali, District- Jhansi as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 17.05.2023, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi.

¶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

¶16

NA528 No. 40004 of 2025

¶17

¶18

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.

¶19

The application stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.

¶20

November 19, 2025 Ishan

¶21

(Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ISHAN JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ashok Kumar Khare and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Khare and Another 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

Smt. Anita and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chhote Khan vs State of Up

Dashmesh vs State of U.P. and Another

Kariya Alias Madhav Prasad and 6 Others vs State of U.P.

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

Surya Prakash and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and Another