Tarun Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2026)

Tarun Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the applicant to withdraw the application and file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction; any such bail application to be decided in the light of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51.

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 12282 of 2025 (arising out of Case Crime No. 216 of 2025, under Section 318(4) of B.N.S. and Section 63 of Copy Right Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Bareilly) and the cognizance/summoning order dated 15.11.2025 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly 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

After some arguments, learned counsel for the applicant was permitted to withdraw the application with liberty to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction, and the application stands disposed of with that liberty.

Key takeaways

In case a bail application is filed by the learned counsel for the applicant, the same shall be decided in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.), Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 7733 of 2026, decided May 18, 2026 — Tarun Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another. Application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 12282 of 2025 (arising out of Case Crime No. 216 of 2025, under Section 318(4) of B.N.S. and Section 63 of Copy Right Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Bareilly) and the cognizance/summoning order dated 15.11.2025 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly. Held: the prayer for quashing was refused; thereafter, on the applicant's request, the application was withdrawn and stood disposed of with liberty to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction. Any such bail application is to be decided in the light of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51, wherein (as quoted in the judgment) for category A accused against whom a charge-sheet has been submitted on appearance, bail applications may be decided without the accused being taken in physical custody or by granting interim bail till the bail application is decided.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 7733 of 2026

Tarun Kumar

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Vijaya Shankar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 76

HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

Sri Vijaya Shankar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri M.K. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

The present application under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 12282 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 216 of 2025, under Section 318(4) of B.N.S. and Section 63 of Copy Right Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Bareilly as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 15.11.2025, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was not arrested during the course of investigation and the charge-sheet has 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 judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51, wherein the

NA528 No. 7733 of 2026

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.

May 18, 2026 Ishan

(Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.)

Digitally signed by :- ISHAN JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad