Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

RAMESH YADAV AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided

Holding

The application to quash the criminal proceedings was refused, and the applicants were allowed to withdraw it and file a regular bail application.

Summary

The Allahabad High Court considered an application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by Ramesh Yadav and another seeking to quash the criminal proceedings (Criminal Case No. 294 of 2025) pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia, which involved charges under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC. The applicants argued that they had not been arrested and that the charge‑sheet had already been filed, contending that the offence carried a maximum imprisonment of seven years. The Court examined the material and, after hearing counsel, refused the prayer to quash the proceedings. The applicants were permitted to withdraw the application and were given liberty to file a regular bail application, which the Court indicated should be decided in line with the Supreme Court’s observations in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI regarding bail for “Category A” accused where a charge‑sheet is on record. The application was therefore disposed of.

Issues considered

  • Whether the application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash the criminal proceedings is maintainable
  • Whether bail can be granted without physical custody for an accused in Category A where a charge‑sheet has been filed

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • quash of criminal proceedings
  • Section 528
  • bail
  • Category A
  • charge-sheet
  • discretion of court
  • IPC offences
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

           APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10892 of 2026

Ramesh Yadav And Another
                                                               .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                   .....Opposite
                                                                         Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Ashok Kumar Singh, Vijay Pratap Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 74
               HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

Sri Vijay Pratap Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Karunakar
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. 294 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 20 of 2024,
under Sections 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station- Nagra, District- Ballia
as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 18.01.2025, pending in the
Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia.

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
Supreme Court considering the category(A) as mentioned in the paragraph
                                                                                           NA528 No. 10892 of 2026
                                                                     2


                                    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


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.