Allahabad High Court
AJAY YADAV AND 8 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- GAUTAM CHOWDHARY
Holding
The Court held that under Section 528 BNSS it is not required to assess the correctness of the allegations, and therefore the prayer to quash the charge sheet was refused.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to set aside the cognizance order dated 23‑04‑2026 and to quash the charge sheet dated 07‑04‑2026 in Sessions Case No. 720 of 2026, which arose from a FIR containing offences under various sections of the BNSS and the POCSO Act. The High Court examined the material and observed that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence and that the police investigation supported the charge sheet. The Court held that, under Section 528 BNSS, it is not required to assess the correctness of the allegations or the reliability of the investigation material before refusing a prayer to quash the charge sheet. Consequently, the application was dismissed, with a direction that the applicants may apply for bail within 15 days and that no coercive action be taken during that period. The decision also referenced the Supreme Court guidelines in Satendra Kumar Antil v. CBI.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can set aside the cognizance order and quash the charge sheet under Section 528 BNSS without examining the correctness of the allegations.
- Whether the applicants are entitled to relief of bail pending trial.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 528
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 10, 9
Subjects
- Section 528
- quash of charge sheet
- cognizance order
- POCSO Act
- bail
- High Court
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 21344 of 2026
Ajay Yadav And 8 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Awadhesh Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 75
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 for setting aside of the cognizance order
dated 23.04.2026 as well as for quashing of charge sheet dated 07.04.2026
including the entire proceeding of Sessions Case No. 720 of 2026 (State Vs.
Ajay Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 42 of 2026, under
Sections 74, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 191(2), 127(2) B.N.S. and Section 9/10 of
Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Pharenda,
District Maharajganj, pending in the court of learned Special Judge,
Exclusive Court (POCSO Act), Maharajganj.
3. On perusal of the record, the Court finds that the allegations made in the
first information report disclose commission of a cognizable offence and
those allegations have found support from the material collected during the
course of investigation on the basis whereof the police has laid a charge
sheet against the applicants.
4. This Court in exercise of its power under section 528 BNSS is not
required to assess the correctness of the allegation and the reliability of the
material collected during the course of investigation, the prayer to quash the
charge sheet 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
NA528 No. 21344 of 2026
2
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).
6. For a period of aforesaid period of 15 days no coercive action shall be
taken against the applicants.
(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
October 1, 2026
Mustaqeem.
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…