Madan vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Madan vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief; the prayer to quash the summoning order and the consequential proceeding was rejected, and no specific direction was issued regarding the bail prayer, the court below being expected to consider the Apex Court's bail guidelines in Satendra Kumar Antil. Application disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning order dated 13.09.2022 and the consequential criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. 376 of 2019 are liable to be quashed under Section 528 BNSS. +1 more

Court's answer

The allegations made in the complaint disclose commission of a cognizable offence and those allegations have found support in the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., on the basis whereof the summoning order has been passed against the applicants.

Ratio / Principle

In exercise of its power under Section 528 BNSS, this Court is not required to assess the correctness of the allegation and the reliability of the evidence; the prayer to quash the summoning order and the consequential proceeding is rejected.

Key takeaways

No specific direction need be issued on the bail prayer; since the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil has already laid down guidelines for grant of bail, without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and the statutory provisions governing consideration in grant of bail, the court concerned is expected to take into consideration the necessary guidelines already issued by the Apex Court.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing — Application under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of summoning order dated 13.09.2022 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division)/FTC/Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur in Complaint Case No. 376 of 2019 (Shanti Vs. Ramrasyan and others) under Sections 354, 354A, 354B, 447, 504 I.P.C., P.S. Viwar, District Hamirpur — Held, allegations in the complaint disclose commission of a cognizable offence and are supported by statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., on which basis the summoning order was passed — In exercise of power under Section 528 BNSS the Court is not required to assess the correctness of the allegations or the reliability of the evidence; prayer to quash rejected — On apprehension of arrest and coercive process, no specific direction issued, the Apex Court's guidelines in Satendra Kumar Antil (SLP (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided 07.10.2021) on grant of bail being available to the court concerned — Application disposed of.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 19417 of 2026

Madan

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Haseen Ahmad, Shriprakash Mishra : G.A.

Court No. - 82

HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

This application has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 13.09.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/FTC/Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur in Complaint Case No. 376 of 2019 (Shanti Vs. Ramrasyan and others) under Sections 354, 354A, 354B, 447, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Viwar, District Hamirpur.

On perusal of the record, the Court finds that the allegations made in the complaint disclose commission of a cognizable offence and those allegations have found support in the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. on the basis whereof the summoning order has been passed against the applicants.

This Court in exercise of its power under section 528 of B.N.S.S., is not required to assess the correctness of the allegation and the reliability of the evidence, the prayer to quash the summoning order and the consequential proceeding is rejected.

At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has so far not been arrested in the above case and the police is seeking to arrest the applicant and there may be coercive processes issued against the applicant by the court concerned therefore, some direction may be issued to the court concerned for consideration of the bail prayer of the applicant.

As the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021) has already laid down guidelines for grant of bail, without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and the statutory provisions governing consideration in grant of bail, no specific

NA528 No. 19417 of 2026

2

direction need be issued by this Court as it is expected that the court concerned will take into consideration the necessary guidelines already issued by the Apex court.

With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed off.

(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)

May 12, 2026

S.Ali

Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad