Allahabad High Court
GAYATRI YADAV AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF UP AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- DEEPAK VERMA
Holding
The application to quash the summons and proceedings is refused, and the Court directs surrender and expeditious consideration of bail.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking to quash a summoning order dated 24-12-2025 and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.420 of 2025 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj. They also requested that the lower courts be directed to decide their bail applications expeditiously. The State did not oppose the alternative prayer for expeditious bail. The High Court refused the prayer to quash the summons and proceedings, but ordered the applicants to surrender before the lower court within three weeks and directed that any bail application be decided promptly, citing the Supreme Court decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI. The Court also directed that no coercive action be taken against the applicants during the three‑week period or until surrender, and disposed of the Section 528 application.
Issues considered
- Whether the application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. to quash the summoning order and the pending criminal proceedings is maintainable.
- Whether the High Court can direct the lower courts to decide the bail applications of the accused expeditiously.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 528
Subjects
- Section 528
- B.N.S.S.
- quash of proceedings
- bail
- expeditious bail
- surrender
- coercive action
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37295 of 2026
Gayatri Yadav And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Subhash Chandra Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 74
HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicants; learned A.G.A. for State and
perused the record.
2. Present 528 B.N.S.S. application has been filed to quash the summoning
order dated 24.12.2025 issued by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Room
no.5, Prayagraj as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.420 of
2025 (Markandey Singh Yadav Versus Gayatri Yadav and another) under
sections 352, 351(2), 305, 324 B.N.S., police station Jhunsi, District
Prayagraj, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
Room no.5, Prayagraj.
3. On the matter being taken up, learned counsel for the applicants 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
applicants.
5. Accordingly the relief as sought by the applicants through this application
is refused.
6. Considering the aforesaid alternative prayer of the applicant, it is directed
that applicants shall surrender before the concerned Court below within three
weeks from today and in case apply for bail, the bail application shall be
NA528 No. 37295 of 2026
2
decided expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with law laid down
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 the 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 B.N.S.S.
stands disposed of.
(Deepak Verma,J.)
September 8, 2026
Meenu Singh
Digitally signed by :-
MEENU SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…