Allahabad High Court
PANKAJ PATELversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI
Holding
The court refused to quash the criminal proceedings and disposed of the Section 528 application, permitting the applicant to file a bail application.
Summary
The applicant, Pankaj Patel, filed an application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings (Case No. 1582 of 2025) pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj. The charges, filed under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 110 and 324(4) of the B.N.S., were based on a charge‑sheet already submitted, although the applicant had not been arrested. The court examined whether a quash petition is maintainable when a charge‑sheet is on record and the accused is not in custody. It declined the prayer to quash the case and instead allowed the applicant to withdraw the application, granting liberty to file a regular bail application. The court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, emphasizing that bail applications in “Category A” cases may be decided without physical custody. The application was therefore disposed of, with the applicant free to seek bail.
Issues considered
- Whether an application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita can be entertained to quash criminal proceedings when a charge‑sheet has already been filed and the accused has not been arrested.
- Whether bail can be granted without physical custody in a Category A case as per the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 110, 115(2), 191(2), 324(4), 351(2), 352, 528
Subjects
- quash of criminal proceedings
- Section 528
- Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita
- bail
- Category A bail
- charge‑sheet
- non‑arrest
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 29394 of 2026
Pankaj Patel
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akansha Verma, Deepak Kumar Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.
Heard Ms. Ruchi Verma, Advocate holding brief of Shri Deepak Kumar
Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Abhishek Kumar, 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. 1582 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 85 of
2025, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 110 & 324(4) of B.N.S.,
Police Station- Bahariya, District- Prayagraj as well as
cognizance/summoning order dated 2.9.2025, pending in the Court of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 15, Prayagraj.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was not arrested
during the course of investigation and the charge-sheet have been submitted
against him. 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 applicant is, hereby, refused.
After some arguments, learned counsel for the applicant 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 applicant, 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. 29394 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.
September 8, 2026
T. Sinha
(Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
TRIPTI SINHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…