Applicants sought quashing of criminal proceedings and summoning order in a cheating case. The court refused the prayer; counsel sought withdrawal with liberty to apply for regular bail, guided by Satender Kumar Antil.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 42581 of 2025
Sushma Devi And Another
.....Applicant(s)
| Versus | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State of U.P. and Another | ... | ..Opposite Party(s) |
|||
| Counsel for Applicant(s) | : | Gyanedra Prajapati |
Pratap | Singh, | Manish |
| Counsel for Opposite Party(s) | : | G.A. | |||
| Court No.- 75 |
HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.
Shri Gyanedra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Karunakar Singh, learned AGA for the State are present.
The present application under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicants to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1169/2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 201/2022, under Sections 419, 420 IPC, Police Station Khiri, District Prayagraj as well as the cognizance/ summoning order dated 21.10.2023, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Prayagraj.
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.
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. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51 , wherein the
NA528 No. 42581 of 2025
2
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.
(Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.)
November 3, 2025 Rama Kant
Digitally signed by :- RAMA KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether proceedings under Sections 419/420 IPC and the cognizance order against the applicants should be quashed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & AnotherRelied on¶14
(2022) 10 SCC 51 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sushma Devi
State of U.P.
Sanjay Kumar Pachori
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
