Disposed¶17

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

Allahabad HC21 Nov 2025NA528/40848/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing application under Section 528 BNSS refused; applicants permitted to withdraw with liberty to file regular bail application; charge-sheet submitted without arrest; offence punishable up to 7 years; Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) BNS; Case Crime No. 68 of 2025; Criminal Case No. 866 of 2025; Police Station Quolaria, District Bareilly; cognizance/summoning order dated 31.07.2025; Judicial Magistrate Nawabganj; guidance per category A of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51; disposed of with liberty.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash refused; counsel permitted to withdraw the application with liberty to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction, such bail application to be decided in the light of Satender Kumar Antil (2022) 10 SCC 51. ¶17

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 866 of 2025 (arising out of Case Crime No. 68 of 2025, Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) B.N.S., Police Station Quolaria, District Bareilly) and the cognizance/summoning order dated 31.07.2025 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Nawabganj, Bareilly should be quashed pursuant to an application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

The prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants to quash the criminal proceedings and the cognizance/summoning order is refused upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

Learned counsel for the applicants withdrew the application with liberty to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction, and the application accordingly stands disposed of with that liberty.

¶17

Key takeaways

If a regular bail application is filed by the applicants' counsel, it shall be decided in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51, i.e., for category A accused (charge-sheet submitted on appearance) bail may be decided without physical custody or by interim bail till decision, with a better exercise of discretion in favour of the accused. (Directive conditional on a future filing; the substantive category-A observations are those of the cited Supreme Court judgment, not this court.)obiter¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Court No. 75 (Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.) — Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 40848 of 2025, Sachin and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another (November 21, 2025): The applicants sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 866 of 2025 (arising out of Case Crime No. 68 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Quolaria, District Bareilly) together with the cognizance/summoning order dated 31.07.2025 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Nawabganj, Bareilly. Counsel submitted that the applicants were not arrested during investigation, a charge-sheet had been submitted against them, and the offence is punishable up to 7 years imprisonment. Upon considering the facts and circumstances, the prayer to quash was refused. Counsel then withdrew the application with liberty to file a regular bail application before a court of competent jurisdiction, and the application stands disposed of with that liberty. Any such bail application is to be decided in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51 — for category A accused, against whom a 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 in favour of the accused (observations of the cited Supreme Court judgment).

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 40848 of 2025

¶3

Sachin And 3 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

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

¶6

Court No. - 75

¶7

HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

¶8

Sri Mohd. Ragib Ali, Advocate holding brief of Sri Hasan Parvej, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashwani Kumar Rai, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶9

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. 866 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 68 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) of B.N.S., Police Station- Quolaria, District- Bareilly as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 31.07.2025 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Nawabganj, Bareilly.

¶10

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.

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

NA528 No. 40848 of 2025

¶15

¶16

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.

¶17

The application stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.

¶18

November 21, 2025 Ishan

¶19

(Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.)

¶20

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin 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

Mohmd Hanif and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Chandra Prakash Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamal Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Shivani Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another

Jayant Singh vs State of U.P. and Another