Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

PRADEEP CHAUDHARY AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided

Holding

The application under Section 528 BNSS to quash the proceedings was refused.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the criminal proceedings (Criminal Case No. 7571 of 2026) arising from offences under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) and 110 of the B.N.S. for which a charge‑sheet had already been filed. The applicants argued that they had not been arrested and that the offences carried a maximum imprisonment of seven years, contending that the proceedings should be set aside. The High Court examined the material and refused the prayer to quash the case, holding that the charge‑sheet’s filing precludes such a remedy. The Court allowed the applicants to withdraw the application and, if desired, file a regular bail application, referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI which guides bail discretion for "Category A" cases where a charge‑sheet is already on record. The application was therefore dismissed, with liberty to seek bail thereafter.

Issues considered

  • Whether an application under Section 528 BNSS to quash criminal proceedings can be entertained when a charge‑sheet has already been filed and the accused has not been arrested
  • Whether the court should entertain a bail application for the accused in light of the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI

Legislation cited

  • B.N.S. — s. 110, 115(2), 351(3), 352
  • BNSS — s. 528

Subjects

  • quash of criminal proceedings
  • Section 528 BNSS
  • charge‑sheet
  • bail discretion
  • Category A
  • Supreme Court precedent

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 33316 of 2026

Pradeep Chaudhary And Another
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Dinesh Kumar            Pandey,      Yogesh
                                Shekhar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and
Sri Rahul Pandey, learned brief holder for the State and perused the
material on record.

The present application under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed to
quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 7571 of 2026, arising
out of Case Crime No. 647 of 202025, under Sections 115 (2), 352, 351
(3), 110 of B.N.S. Police Station- Hata, District- Kushi Nagar as well as
charge sheet dated 15.1.2026 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kushi Nagar.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants were not
arrested during the course of investigation and the charge-sheet has been
submitted against them. It is further submitted that the offences are
punishable up to 7 years imprisonment.

Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer
made by learned counsel for the applicants is, hereby, refused.

After some arguments, learned counsel for the applicants 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 applicants,
the same shall be decided in the light of the observations made in the
                                                                                          NA528 No. 33316 of 2026
                                                                   2


                                    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 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 present application stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.




                                                                                   (Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.)
                                    September 9, 2026
                                    A.




Digitally signed by :-
AFAQ AHMAD
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.