Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

LAKSHMANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided

Holding

The application under Section 528 to quash the proceedings was refused, but the applicant was allowed to withdraw it and file a regular bail application.

Summary

The applicant Lakshman filed an application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings (Criminal Case No. 107 of 2026) arising from alleged offences under Sections 352 and 110 of the same Act. The applicant argued that he had not been arrested and that a charge‑sheet had already been filed, contending that the offence carried a maximum imprisonment of seven years. The High Court examined the material and rejected the prayer to quash the case, holding that the application could not be entertained. The Court, however, permitted the applicant to withdraw the application and to file a regular bail application, referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI regarding bail for “Category A” accused where a charge‑sheet is filed. The bail application, if filed, must be decided in accordance with the Supreme Court’s observations on granting interim bail without physical custody.

Issues considered

  • Whether the application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita can be entertained to quash the criminal proceedings
  • Whether the applicant is entitled to bail without physical custody under the Supreme Court’s guidelines for Category A accused where a charge‑sheet has been filed

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • quash proceedings
  • Section 528
  • bail
  • Category A
  • charge-sheet
  • interim bail
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

           APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 30598 of 2026

Lakshman
                                                               .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                   .....Opposite
                                                                         Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                            :    Varsha Srivas
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                       :    G.A.

Court No. - 77
               HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

Heard Ms. Varsha Srivas, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri A.K. Rai,
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. 107 of 2026, arising out of Case Crime No. 299 of
2025, under Sections 352, 110 of B.N.S., Police Station- Madihan, District-
Mirzapur as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 16.6.2026, pending
in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C., Mirzapur.

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
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
                                                                                            NA528 No. 30598 of 2026
                                                                    2

                                    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


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.