Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

HARPAL AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided

Holding

The application to quash the proceedings was refused, and the applicants were permitted to withdraw it and file a regular bail application.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the criminal proceedings (Case No. 4499 of 2022) filed by the State of U.P. under IPC sections 147, 148, 323, 504 and 506. They argued that they had not been arrested and that a charge‑sheet had already been filed, with the alleged offence punishable by up to seven years’ imprisonment. The High Court examined the material and refused the prayer to quash the proceedings, but allowed the applicants to withdraw the application and to file a regular bail petition. The Court indicated that any bail application would be decided in line with the Supreme Court’s observations in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, where bail for "Category A" accused whose charge‑sheet is on record may be granted without physical custody. The application was therefore disposed of, with liberty to approach the court for bail.

Issues considered

  • Whether an application under Section 528 of the BNSS can be entertained to quash pending criminal proceedings.
  • Whether bail can be granted to accused of Category A offences without physical custody after charge‑sheet submission.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • Section 528 application
  • quash of criminal proceedings
  • bail
  • Category A bail
  • IPC offences
  • High Court of Allahabad

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

            APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5738 of 2026

Harpal And 4 Others
                                                               .....Applicant(s)
                                       Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                   .....Opposite
                                                                         Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)           :    Kunjesh Kumar Dubey, Shakti Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)      :    G.A.

Court No. - 74
               HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

Heard Sri Kunjesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
B.N. Upadhyay, 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 Case No. 4499 of 2022, (State Vs. Harpal and
others) arising out of Case Crime No. 175 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148,
323, 504, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station- Khoda, District Ghaziabad, as well
as judgment and order dated 02.12.2025 pending in the Court of Additional
Civil Judge (S.D.)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3,
Ghaziabad.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants were not arrested
during the course of investigation and the charge-sheet have been submitted
against them. 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 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 judgments
rendered by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central
                                                                                             NA528 No. 5738 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 except 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.

                                    March 18, 2026
                                    A.N. Mishra
                                                                                     (Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
AMARNATH MISHRA
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.