Vinod Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Vinod Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Prayer to quash the charge sheet/proceedings not entertained; however, the applicant is protected from arrest for two weeks or until surrender, whichever is earlier, and is directed to surrender before the court below within 30 days, with any bail application to be disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law and the Satender Kumar Antil guidelines.

Issue for consideration

Whether no offence is disclosed against the applicant and the prosecution pursuant to the charge sheet dated 08.02.2016 and N.B.W. dated 29.11.2025 was instituted with mala fide intention to cause harassment, such that the further proceedings ought to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

Court's answer

From the perusal of the material on record and the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant; all submissions at the bar relate to disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon by the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only a prima facie case being seen at this stage in the light of the law laid down in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq.

Ratio / Principle

The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at the quashing stage.

Key takeaways

Considering the applicant's alternative prayer, he is directed to surrender before the concerned court below within 30 days; if he applies for bail, the bail application shall be disposed of expeditiously by the court below in accordance with law and keeping in view the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2021 SCC Online SC 922).ratio¶17
For a period of two weeks from the date of the order, or until the applicant surrenders before the concerned court below, whichever is earlier, the applicant shall not be arrested in the case.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 29 — Divesh Chandra Samant, J. — Application U/S 482 No. 2125 of 2026, decided March 10, 2026. Vinod Yadav moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash further proceedings of the charge sheet dated 08.02.2016 and N.B.W. dated 29.11.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri in Suit No. 1732 of 2016, Rang Case No. 27/2015-16, under Sections 9 and 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act and Sections 26, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, alleging no offence was disclosed and that the prosecution was mala fide harassment. Held: on the material on record it cannot be said that no offence is made out; the submissions raised disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the prima facie view being taken in the light of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866), State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Cr.) 426), State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma (1992 SCC (Cr.) 192) and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq (2005 SCC (Cr.) 283); the disputed defence cannot be considered at this stage. Application disposed of: applicant to surrender within 30 days; any bail application to be decided expeditiously per Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2021 SCC Online SC 922); no arrest for two weeks or till surrender, whichever is earlier.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2125 of 2026

Vinod Yadav

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sandeep Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 29

HON'BLE DIVESH CHANDRA SAMANT, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the further proceedings of the impugned charge sheet dated 08.02.2016, N.B.W. dated 29.11.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri in Suit No. 1732 of 2016, Rang Case No. 27/2015-16, under Sections- 9, 51 of Wild Life Protection Act and 26, 41, 42 of Indian forest ACt at Rang-Dhaurahara, Uttar Kheri, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and

A482 No. 2125 of 2026

2

another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 . The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is ready to surrender before the trial Court for obtaining bail and for that some protection may be granted to him.

However considering the aforesaid alternative prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that the applicant shall surrender before the concerned court below within 30 days from today and in case he applies for bail, the bail application of the applicant shall be disposed of expeditiously by the court below in accordance with law and keeping in view the guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another , reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 922.

For the period of two weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicant before the concerned court below, whichever is earlier, applicant shall not be arrested in the above case.

With the above observations and directions, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of .

(Divesh Chandra Samant,J.)

March 10, 2026 ADY

Digitally signed by :- AMAR DEEP YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench