Disposed¶20

Mohd Suhel and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Mar 2026NA528/8479/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS quashing application dismissed by refusal and permitted withdrawal; BNS Sections 115(2), 351(3), 352; charge-sheet filed without arrest; offence punishable up to 7 years; Satender Kumar Antil (2022) 10 SCC 51 Category A; bail without physical custody or interim bail; cognizance/summoning order 28.01.2026; CJM Basti; Case Crime No. 221 of 2025; P.S. Nagar District Basti; Allahabad High Court; Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.; March 19, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of with liberty to withdraw and file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction, to be decided in light of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51. ¶20

Mohd Suhel and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 316 of 2026 (arising out of Case Crime No. 221 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 352 BNS) and the cognizance/summoning order dated 28.01.2026 should be quashed.

¶12

Court's answer

The prayer made by the applicants to quash the proceedings and the cognizance/summoning order was refused upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Liberty was granted to the applicants' counsel to withdraw the application and file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction.

¶15

Key takeaways

If a bail application is filed, it shall be decided in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51, regarding Category A cases (charge-sheet submitted on appearance; bail may be considered without taking the accused in physical custody or by granting interim bail).ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.) disposed of an application under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 316 of 2026, arising out of Case Crime No. 221 of 2025 under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 352 BNS (P.S. Nagar, District Basti), and the cognizance/summoning order dated 28.01.2026 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti. The quashing prayer was refused. Counsel for the applicants, who had not been arrested during investigation and against whom a charge-sheet had been filed for an offence punishable up to 7 years, was permitted to withdraw the application with liberty to file a regular bail application before the competent court, which is to be decided in light of the Supreme Court's observations in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51 (Category A: bail may be considered without physical custody or by granting interim bail).

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8479 of 2026

¶3

Mohd Suhel And 2 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of U.P. and Another

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Sandeep Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 74

¶10

HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

¶11

Sri Sandeep Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Rahul Pandey, brief holder for the State and perused the material on record.

¶12

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. 316 of 2026 arising out of Case Crime No. 221 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 352 of B.N.S., Police Station- Nagar, District- Basti as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 28.01.2026, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti.

¶13

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.

¶14

Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants is, hereby, refused.

¶15

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.

¶16

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 Supreme Court considering the category(A) as mentioned in the paragraph

¶17

NA528 No. 8479 of 2026

¶18

¶19

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.

¶20

The application stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.

¶21

March 19, 2026 Ishan

¶22

(Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.)

¶23

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

Mohd Suhel and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Suhel and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Matul Gupta and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonu @ Abhishek Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dan Bahadur and 3 Others vs State of Up and Another

Smt. Doli and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Ujagir @ Munnu and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another