Allahabad High Court
SITAMBAR @ DEENDAYAL AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- GAUTAM CHOWDHARY
Holding
The Court refused to quash the summoning order, holding that under Section 528 BNSS it is not required to assess the correctness of the allegations.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to set aside the quashing of a summoning order dated 09.03.2026 and the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 1627 of 2024 (Raghav v. Sitampbar @ Deendayal). The High Court examined the complaint and found that the allegations disclosed a cognizable offence and were supported by statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which justified the issuance of the summoning order. The Court held that, under Section 528 BNSS, it is not required to assess the correctness of the allegations or the reliability of the evidence when considering a prayer to quash a summons. Consequently, the application to quash the summoning order was refused. The Court disposed of the application, directing that the applicants may apply for bail within 15 days and that no coercive action be taken against them during that period, in line with the Supreme Court guidelines in Satendra Kumar Antil v. CBI.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can set aside the quashing of a summoning order under Section 528 BNSS.
- Whether the Court must examine the merits of the allegations and the reliability of evidence when entertaining an application to quash a summons.
- Whether the applicants are entitled to bail and protection from coercive action pending such application.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 115(2), 309, 332(3), 351(2), 352, 528
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 200, 202
Subjects
- Section 528
- quashing of summons
- cognizable offence
- bail
- High Court
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15954 of 2026
Sitambar @ Deendayal And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Uday Prakash
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 82
HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for
the State and perused the material brought on record.
2. This application has been filed to set aside the quashing of
summoning order dated 09.03.2026 as well entire proceeding
of Complaint Case No. 1627 of 2024 (Raghav Vs. Sitampbar
@ Deendayal and others), under Sections 309, 332(3), 115(2),
352, 351 (2) of B.N.S., Police Station Bivar, District Hamirpur,
pending in the court of learned Special Judge (D.A.A.),
Hamipur.
3. On perusal of the record, the Court finds that the allegations
made in the complaint disclose commission of a cognizable
offence and those allegations have found support in the
statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. on the
basis whereof the summoning order has been passed against
the applicant.
4. This Court in exercise of its power under Section 528 BNSS
is not required to assess the correctness of the allegations and
reliability of evidence. Thus, the prayer to quash the
summoning order and the consequential proceeding is refused.
5. The present application stands disposed of with the direction
that in case applicants appear before the court concerned and
apply for bail within 15 days from today, the same shall be
decided by the court concerned in accordance with law in view
of the guidelines of Apex Court in the case of Satendra
Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and
another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021,
decided on 07.10.2021).
NA528 No. 15954 of 2026
2
6. For a period of 15 days no coercive action shall be taken
against the applicants.
May 5, 2026
Mustaqeem.
(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…