Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:16908 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 3530 of 2025 Applicant :- Suraj Pal And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Neelabh Srivastava,Shailesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J. Sri Neelabh Srivastava, 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 Criminal Case No. 562437 of 2024, (State Vs. Suraj Pal and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.217 of 2024, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 325 and 308 of I.P.C., Police Station-Sadar Bazar, District- Shahjahanpur, as well as cognizance/ summoning order 26.09.2024, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur. 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 :- 5.2.2025 Akram Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AKRAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad