Allahabad High Court
SANTOSH KUMARIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- DEEPAK VERMA
Holding
The application to quash the proceedings is refused, but the court directs surrender and an expeditious decision on the bail application, with a temporary stay on coercive action.
Summary
Santosh Kumari filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the criminal complaint (Case No. 2891 of 2025) filed under Section 468 IPC and to obtain an order for the speedy disposal of her bail application. The State did not oppose the request for an expeditious bail hearing. The High Court refused the prayer to quash the proceedings but directed the applicant to surrender before the lower court within three weeks and ordered that any bail application be decided promptly, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI. The Court also ordered that no coercive action be taken against the applicant during the three‑week period. Consequently, the Section 528 application was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the application under Section 528 BNSS to quash the pending criminal proceedings can be entertained.
- Whether the court can direct an expeditious decision on the bail application of the applicant.
- Whether a stay on coercive action against the applicant is warranted pending surrender.
Legislation cited
- Bail and No‑Objection (BNSS) Act — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 468
Subjects
- bail
- quash of criminal proceedings
- Section 528 BNSS
- Section 468 IPC
- coercive action
- expeditious bail hearing
- surrender
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 36591 of 2026
Santosh Kumari
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Agnivesh, Jadu Nandan Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 74
HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant
to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2891 of 2025 (Vinod
Kumar Gupta Versus Santosh Kumari and others), under Section 468 I.P.C.,
Police Station Jalalabad, District Shahjahanpur, pending in the Court of
Judicial Magistrate-II, Court No. 28, Shahjahanpur as well as cognizance
and summoning order dated 25.05.2026 passed by Judicial Magistrate II,
Court No. 28, Shahjahanpur.
3. On the matter being taken up, learned counsel for the applicant has not
pressed the relief as sought by means of this application on merit and prayed
for issuance of appropriate direction to the concerned Courts below to decide
the bail application of the applicants, expeditiously.
4. Learned A.G.A. has no objection in allowing the aforesaid prayer of the
applicant.
5. Accordingly the relief as sought by the applicant through this application
is refused.
6. Considering the aforesaid alternative prayer of the applicant, it is directed
that applicant shall surrender before the concerned Court below within three
weeks from today and in case applies for bail, the bail application shall be
decided expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with law laid down
NA528 No. 36591 of 2026
2
by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC
922.
7. For a period of three weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the
applicants before the Court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action
shall be taken against them.
8. With the aforesaid directions, this application under Section 528
BNSS stands disposed of.
(Deepak Verma,J.)
September 29, 2026
T.S.
Digitally signed by :-
TRIBHUWAN SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…