Disposed

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

Allahabad HC21 Nov 2025NA528/40853/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought quashing of criminal proceedings and cognizance order under Section 528 BNSS in a charge-sheeted case punishable up to seven years. The prayer was refused; the applicant was permitted to withdraw and file a regular bail application, to be considered per Satender Kumar Antil guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to withdraw application and file a regular bail application before the competent court, to be decided per Satender Kumar Antil observations.

Smt. Shivani Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 40853 of 2025

¶3

Smt. Shivani Sharma

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Anurag Pandey, Virendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 75

¶7

HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

¶8

Sri Virendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rahul Pandey, brief holder 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. 26436 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 620 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) of B.N.S., Police StationChakeri, District- Kanpur Nagar as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 18.03.2025, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was not arrested during the course of investigation and the charge-sheet has been submitted against him. 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 applicant is, hereby, refused.

¶12

After some arguments, learned counsel for the applicant 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 applicant, 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. 40853 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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

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

Jayant Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh @ Kaliya @ Rahul vs State of U.P. and Another