Allahabad High Court
Shivkumar And 6 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 July, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Pachori
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Pachori
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:118423 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 24364 of 2025 Applicant :- Shivkumar And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Sri Ravi Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Abhishek Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The present application under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 261 of 2024, (Pankaj Kumar v. Shivkumar and Others), under Sections 452, 323, 504, 427 of I.P.C., Police Station- Delhi Gate, District- Aligarh, as well as cognizance/ summoning order 17.3.2025 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, District Aligarh..
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 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.
Order Date :- 21.7.2025 Akram