Harendra and 9 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Harendra and 9 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to withdraw the application and to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction, which shall be decided in light of the observations in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51; the prayer for quashing was refused.

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 13520 of 2025 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 04.08.2025 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar, ought to be quashed under Section 528 BNSS.

Court's answer

The prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings and the cognizance/summoning order was refused upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case.

Ratio / Principle

On counsel seeking to withdraw the application, the application stands disposed of with liberty to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction.

Key takeaways

Any bail application filed by the applicants shall be decided in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51 (category A: where a charge-sheet has been submitted on appearance, bail may be considered without physical custody or by interim bail).ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing application under S. 528 BNSS against Criminal Case No. 13520 of 2025 (arising out of Case Crime No. 65 of 2025) under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 333, 324(1), 110 B.N.S., Police Station Pataherwa, District Kushinagar, and cognizance/summoning order dated 04.08.2025 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar: prayer refused; applicants (not arrested during investigation; charge-sheet filed; offences punishable up to 7 years) permitted 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 Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51 (category A — bail without physical custody or interim bail where charge-sheet submitted on appearance).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 41589 of 2025

Harendra And 9 Others

.....Applicant(s)

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

Court No. - 75

HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

Heard Ms. Ankita Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Karunakar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

The present application under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 13520 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 65 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 333, 324(1), 110 of B.N.S., Police Station- Pataherwa, DistrictKushinagar as well as cognizance/ summoning order dated 04.08.2025, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants were not arrested during the course of investigation and the charge-sheet has been submitted against them. It is further submitted that the offences are 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.

NA528 No. 41589 of 2025

2

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 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.

December 10, 2025

MAA/-

(Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.)

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AZAD ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad