Pappu Patel Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Pappu Patel Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Prayer to quash the proceedings and the cognizance/summoning order refused; application permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction, such bail application to be decided in light of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51.

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 437 of 2024 (State Vs. Pappu Patel) arising out of Case Crime No. 195 of 2024 under Sections 76, 351(2) of BNSS, Police Station Sandipan Ghat, District Kaushambi, and the cognizance/summoning order dated 20.09.2024 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Kaushambi, should be quashed.

Court's answer

Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant (for quashing) is refused.

Ratio / Principle

The application stands disposed of, learned counsel for the applicant having been permitted to withdraw it with liberty to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction.

Key takeaways

If a bail application is filed pursuant to the liberty granted, 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., in Category A (accused against whom charge-sheet has been submitted on appearance) bail may be decided without the accused being taken into physical custody or by granting interim bail till the bail application is decided.obiter¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.) disposed of an application (captioned under S.528 BNSS, described in the order as under S.482 CrPC) by Pappu Patel seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 437 of 2024 (State Vs. Pappu Patel) arising out of Case Crime No. 195 of 2024 under Sections 76 and 351(2) of BNSS, Police Station Sandipan Ghat, District Kaushambi, and the cognizance/summoning order dated 20.09.2024 of the Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Kaushambi. Noting that the applicant was not arrested during investigation, the charge-sheet had been submitted against him, and the offence was punishable up to 7 years, the Court refused the quashing prayer. Counsel then sought to withdraw the application with liberty to file a regular bail application, which was granted. Any such bail application is to be decided in the light of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51 (Category A: where charge-sheet is filed after appearance, bail may be decided without physical custody or with interim bail till decision). Order dated 11.2.2025.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:20456

Court No. - 75

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 4168 of 2025

Applicant :- Pappu Patel Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Harish Chandra Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

Sri Harish Chand Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.437 of 2024, (State Vs. Pappu Patel) arising out of Case Crime No. 195 of 2024, under Sections 76, 351(2) of BNSS, Police Station- Sandipan Ghat, District- Kaushambi, as well as cognizance/ summoning order 20.09.2024 pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Kaushambi.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant was not arrested during the course of investigation and the charge-sheet have been submitted against him. It is further submitted that the offence is punishable up to 7 years imprisonment.

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

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.

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 judgments 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 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 except 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.

Order Date :- 11.2.2025 Akram

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