Allahabad High Court
MUKUL HARITversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI
Holding
The application under Section 528 to quash the proceedings was refused, and the applicant was allowed to withdraw the application and seek bail under the Supreme Court’s Category A principles.
Summary
The applicant filed an application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings (Case No. 9522 of 2026) arising from offences under Sections 126(2), 117(2), 115(2), 352 and 351(3) of the same Act. The applicant argued that he was never arrested and that a charge‑sheet had already been filed, with the alleged offence carrying a maximum imprisonment of seven years. The Court examined the material and refused the prayer to quash the proceedings. The applicant was permitted to withdraw the application and was given liberty to file a regular bail application, which the Court indicated should be decided in line with the Supreme Court’s observations in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) regarding Category A bail applications where a charge‑sheet is already filed. The application was therefore disposed of, with the Court emphasizing the need for a more liberal exercise of discretion in such bail matters.
Issues considered
- Whether the application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita can be entertained to quash the pending criminal proceedings.
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail without physical custody under the Supreme Court’s Category A guidelines after a charge‑sheet has been filed.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 351(3), 352, 528
Subjects
- quash proceedings
- Section 528
- bail
- Category A
- charge‑sheet
- discretion
- criminal procedure
- Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 32446 of 2026
Mukul Harit
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ishwar Kumar Upadhyay, Manoj Kumar
Singh, Nitish Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Pawan Giri
Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.
Heard Sri Nitish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms.
Saumya Madhyan, learned brief holder for the State, Shri Pawan Giri,
learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 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. 9522 of 2026, arising out of Case Crime No. 712 of
2025, under Sections 126(2), 117(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3) of B.N.S., Police
Station- Surajpur, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar as well as
cognizance/summoning order dated 17.3.2026, pending in the Court of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Gautam Buddh Nagar.
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
NA528 No. 32446 of 2026
2
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
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.
October 1, 2026
T. Sinha
(Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
TRIPTI SINHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…