Disposed

Ram Kesh @ Ramkesh and Another v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Mar 2026NA528/604/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application to quash a charge-sheet and summoning order under Sections 85, 115(2), 352 and 351(3) BNS was not pressed on merit; the court refused quashing but permitted surrender with protection from arrest for 30 days and directed expeditious disposal of the bail application.

What did the court decide?

Permission to surrender and apply for bail within 30 days; bail application to be decided expeditiously; no arrest for 30 days or till bail application.

Ram Kesh @ Ramkesh and Another vs the State of U.P. Thru… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 604 of 2026

¶3

Ram Kesh @ Ramkesh And Another

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ravindra Kumar Singh, Aman Raj Srivastava, Gaurav Mani Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A. Court No. - 14

¶7

HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

¶8

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

¶9

The present application has been filed with the following prayer:-

¶10

"To quash the impugned Charge-sheet dated 14-04-2025 bearing ChargeSheet No.01 and Summoning order dated 12-12-2025 related with the Case Crime No.176 of 2025, Police Station- Motipur, District- Bahraich for the offences under section-85, 115(2), 352, 351(3) B.N.S. pending in the court of Civil Judge, F.T.C./A.C.J.M., District- Bahraich."

¶11

After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the applicants submits that he does not want to press this application on merit and he confines his prayer only to the extent that applicants may be permitted to surrender and move bail application before the court concerned and suitable directions may be issued that the same may be heard and decided expeditiously, in accordance with law.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has no objection in grant of the aforesaid prayer.

¶13

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against applicants.

¶14

At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs.

¶15

NA528 No. 604 of 2026

¶16

¶17

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 & Another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2017 SC 4843 .

¶18

Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for quashing the charge sheet is hereby refused.

¶19

A seven judges Bench of this Court in the cases of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) and in Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0274/2017 have given various directions to criminal Courts for expeditious disposal of Bail applications. The ratio of above mentioned decisions is quite clear that, in the backdrop of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as the personal liberty of a person is at stake, the bail application should be decided, expeditiously.

¶20

In the recent judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SUO MOTU WRIT (CRL) No. (S) 1 of 2017 In RE: To issue certain guidelines regarding inadequacies and deficiencies in criminal trials vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. vide its judgment and order dated 20.04.2021 has observed the common deficiencies which occurred in the proceedings of the criminal cases and approved "The Draft Rules of Criminal Practice 2021" which is the part of the judgment in Chapter V Rule 17 of aforesaid Rules that the application for bail in non-bailable cases must ordinarily be disposed off within a period of 3 to 7 days from the date of first hearing. If the application is not disposed off within such period, the Presiding Officer shall furnish reasons thereof in the order itself.

¶21

Further, as the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 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 directions 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.

¶22

In backdrop of aforesaid decisions and keeping in view the entirety

¶23

NA528 No. 604 of 2026

¶24

¶25

of facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants, the application is disposed of with a direction to the court below that if the applicants appear before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶26

For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicants apply for bail, whichever is earlier, the applicants shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case.

¶27

March 9, 2026 Arpan

¶28

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶29

Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Kesh @ Ramkesh and Another v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kesh @ Ramkesh and Another v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivanand and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Kaushlendra Pratap Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dairy Development Lko. and 3 Others

Sonal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Basic Education U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Vijai Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Secondary Education and 2 Others

Pawan Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sofiya and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another