Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

TARUN KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided

Holding

The application under Section 528 to quash the criminal proceedings is dismissed.

Summary

The applicant filed an application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings (Criminal Case No. 12282 of 2025) arising under Section 318(4) of the B.N.S. and Section 63 of the Copyright Act. The applicant argued that he had not been arrested and that the charge‑sheet had already been filed for an offence punishable up to seven years. The High Court examined the material and refused the prayer to quash the case, allowing the applicant to withdraw the application and, if desired, file a regular bail petition. The Court noted the Supreme Court’s observations in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) that bail applications of “Category A” accused whose charge‑sheet is on record may be decided without physical custody. The application was therefore disposed of, with liberty to seek bail later.

Issues considered

  • Whether an application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita can be entertained to quash criminal proceedings when a charge‑sheet has already been filed.
  • Whether bail can be granted to a Category A accused without physical custody, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • quash of proceedings
  • Section 528
  • Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita
  • Copyright Act
  • bail
  • Category A
  • charge‑sheet
  • High Court of Allahabad

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

            APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 7733 of 2026

Tarun Kumar
                                                               .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                   .....Opposite
                                                                         Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                     :   Vijaya Shankar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                :   G.A.

Court No. - 76
               HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

Sri Vijaya Shankar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri M.K.
Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State 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. 12282 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 216 of
2025, under Section 318(4) of B.N.S. and Section 63 of Copy Right Act,
Police Station- Kotwali, District- Bareilly as well as cognizance/summoning
order dated 15.11.2025, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bareilly.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was not arrested
during the course of investigation and the charge-sheet has 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
Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51, wherein the
                                                                                            NA528 No. 7733 of 2026
                                                                    2


                                    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.

                                    May 18, 2026
                                    Ishan
                                                                                    (Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
ISHAN JAISWAL
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.