Dan Bahadur and 3 Others vs State of Up and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Dan Bahadur and 3 Others vs State of Up and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction; quashing prayer refused; any bail application to be decided in light of Satender Kumar Antil, (2022) 10 SCC 51.

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 909 of 2025 (arising out of Case Crime No. 694 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 324(4), 110 of B.N.S.) and the cognizance/summoning order dated 24.12.2025 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 8, Prayagraj should be quashed under Section 528 BNSS.

Court's answer

The prayer to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 909 of 2025 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 24.12.2025 is refused.

Ratio / Principle

Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to withdraw the application with liberty to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction.

Key takeaways

If a regular bail application is filed by the applicants, it shall be decided in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51, including its category A observations (charge-sheet submitted on appearance; bail may be decided without taking the accused into physical custody or by granting interim bail till the bail application is decided).ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing application under S. 528 BNSS — refused; withdrawal permitted with liberty to file regular bail — Satender Kumar Antil (2022) 10 SCC 51 (category A) to govern. Applicants, not arrested during investigation and against whom a charge-sheet was filed for offences under Ss. 115(2), 352, 351(2), 324(4) and 110 B.N.S. (P.S. Handia, District Prayagraj; offence punishable up to 7 years), sought quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 909 of 2025 (arising out of Case Crime No. 694 of 2025) and the cognizance/summoning order dated 24.12.2025 of the ACJM, Court No. 8, Prayagraj. The High Court (Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.) refused the quashing prayer but, on the counsel's request, permitted withdrawal with liberty to file a regular bail application before the competent court; any such bail application is to be decided in the light of the Supreme Court's observations in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51 — for category A accused (charge-sheet submitted, appearance without arrest) bail may be decided without physical custody or by granting interim bail till the bail application is decided. Application disposed of (19.03.2026).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8537 of 2026

Dan Bahadur And 3 Others

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Ram Raksha Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 74

HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

Sri Ram Raksha Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Chavipal 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. 909 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 694 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 324(4), 110 of B.N.S., Police Station- Handia, District- Prayagraj as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 24.12.2025 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 8, Prayagraj.

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.

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

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.

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

NA528 No. 8537 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.

March 19, 2026 Ishan

(Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.)

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