Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:23753 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40805 of 2024 Applicant :- Gajendra Singh Chauhan And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Singh Pundir,Shailendra Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J. Sri Pawan Singh Pundir, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 5946 of 2024 (State Vs. Gajendra Singh Chauhan & others ), arising out of Case Crime No. 85 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504, 506 & 427 of I.P.C., Police Station- Maudarwaja, District- Farrukhabad as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 27.08.2024, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad. 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 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. Order Date :- 19.2.2025/MAA/- Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AZAD ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad