Allahabad High Court
SUNITA AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court upheld the magistrate’s order quashing the Section 91 application and directed the applicants to surrender and seek regular bail, applying the precedents of Satender Kumar Antil and Smt. Bachchi Devi.
Summary
Sunita and three others filed an application under Section 91 of the BNSS seeking to quash a March 20, 2026 order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal, which had rejected their bail‑bond request in a criminal case involving offences under IPC sections 452, 323, 504, 506 and 308. The applicants relied on Supreme Court precedent in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI and the Allahabad High Court’s decision in Smt. Bachchi Devi v. State of U.P. to argue that the magistrate’s order was contrary to law. The State opposed, pointing out that an anticipatory bail application had already been dismissed and that the applicants had been directed to surrender. The High Court, without delving into merits, affirmed the magistrate’s order, directing the applicants to surrender within three weeks, file a regular bail application, and submit their bail bonds for consideration, while prohibiting any coercive action during that period. The application under Section 91 was therefore disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate quashing the Section 91 BNSS application is legally valid.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s ruling in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI and the High Court’s decision in Smt. Bachchi Devi v. State of U.P. compel the magistrate to accept the bail bonds.
- Whether the applicants must surrender and file a regular bail application despite the earlier rejection of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 528, 91
- Indian Penal Code — s. 308, 323, 452, 504, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- regular bail
- Section 91 BNSS
- bail bonds
- surrender
- High Court of Allahabad
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15718 of 2026
Sunita And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dileep Kumar Shukla, Shikhar
Neelkanth
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Rajendra Kumar Yadav,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 as well as learned
Additional Government Advocate for the State.
2. Present application has been preferred seeking quashing of order dated
20.03.2026 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal whereby
application preferred at the behest of applicants under Section 91 BNSS in
Case No.4188 of 2024 (State Vs. Gaurav and others), arising out of Case
Crime No.141 of 2024, under Section 452, 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC, P.S.
Bahjoi, District Sambhal, was rejected. Further prayer to direct the learned
court concerned to accept the bail bonds on behalf of applicants in light of
decision of this Court passed in Smt. Bachchi Devi Vs. State of U.P.
[Application U/S 528 BNSS No.6400 of 2025].
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants submitted that without
considering the law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another
(2022 SCC OnLine SC 825) as well as by this Court in Smt. Bachchi Devi
(supra), application preferred at the behest of applicants under Section 91
BNSS, was rejected by learned court concerned vide impugned order which
is bad in the eye of law.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2
vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant application and
rebutted the stands taken up by learned counsel for applicants by way of
submitting that vide order dated 27.08.2025, this Court has already rejected
Anticipatory Bail Application No.6748 of 2025 preferred at the behest of
applicants and directed them to surrender before learned court concerned and
NA528 No. 15718 of 2026
2
file regular bail but without availing the said liberty, applicants preferred
applicants under Section 91 BNSS which was rejected vide impugned order
and as such, the same is just and proper.
5. After having the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for parties
and without going into merit of the matter, order dated 20.03.2026 passed by
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal whereby application preferred at
the behest of applicants under Section 91 BNSS is quashed and applicants
are hereby directed to surrender before learned court concerned within a
period of three weeks and prefer bail application which shall be considered
and decided expeditiously in accordance with law laid down in the case of
Satender Kumar Antil (surpa) and Smt. Bachchi Devi (supra). Till three
weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants herein
in pursuance of aforesaid case.
6. It is also made clear that the bail bonds which have been proposed to be
preferred by applicants, shall be considered by learned court concerned
while adjudicating the bail application which shall be preferred by the
applicants.
7. Accordingly, the instant application is hereby disposed of.
April 20, 2026
Vivek Kr.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VIVEK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…