Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:66475 Court No. - 72 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2489 of 2025 Applicant :- Rampal And 9 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J. Sri Rahul Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri A.K. Singh, learned brief holder 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 Criminal Case No. 5758 of 2022 (State Vs. Anil and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 381 of 2021, under Sections 147, 447, 427, 323, 504, 506, 452 of I.P.C., Police Station- Sihani Gate, District- Ghaziabad as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 12.7.2022, pending in the Court of 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 judgment 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 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. Order Date :- 29.4.2025 T. Sinha Digitally signed by :- TRIPTI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad