HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6863 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. Heard Shri Ram Pratap Tiwari holding brief of Shri M.B. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Vinay Kumar Shahi, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for the following main relief(s):- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quashing the order dated 05/06.02.2014 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate Ambedkar Nagar, in Complaint Case No.3254 of 2012, under sections 323/504/506/324 IPC, (Tribhuwan Verma versus J.P. Yadav and others) as well as order dated 03.08.2024 by which learned trial court issue NBW against the petitioner, in the interest of justice contained in Annexure No.1 & 2 to this Petition." 3. By means of the present application the applicant has challenged the order dated 05/06.02.2014, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar (in short "Magistrate"), whereby the applicant has been summoned to face the trial for the offence under Sections 323, 504, 506, 324 I.P.C., passed in Complaint Case No.3254 of 2012 (Tribhuvan Verma Vs. J.P. Yadav and others) as well as order dated 03.08.2024 by which the learned trial court has issued NBW against the applicant. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mithila Bakhsh Tiwari, Braj Kishor Mishra, Siddhesh Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Jai Prakash Yadav .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) 4. While passing the order impugned dated 05/06.02.2014 the Magistrate took note of the allegations leveled in the complaint case as also the statement of the complainant-injured as also the statement(s) of the witnesses recorded in terms of Section 202 Cr.P.C. According to the complainant-injured the applicant and other accused, namely Ram Nihal and Bhadai assaulted the complainant-injured on 31.07.2012 and the accused/applicant was also assaulted the complainant-injured in the police station concerned as also the fact that immediately on 01.08.2012 the complainant-injured, as the F.I.R. was not lodged, submitted application(s) before the Circle Officer, Tanda; Superintendent of Police, Ambedkar Nagar; and the District Magistrate Ambedkar Nagar through the registered post. 5. Considered the aforesaid as also that without explaining the latches in approaching this Court, the present application has been filed. 6. Upon due consideration of aforesaid, on being confronted, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that liberty may be given to the applicant to file bail application before the trial court, which may be decided in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 S.C.R. 351: (2022) 10 SCC 51 and Musheer Alam vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine as also to prefer a discharge application before the court below and the same may be decided expeditiously. 7. Learned AGA has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant. 8. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the present application is disposed of with liberty as prayed for and with a direction to the court below that if the applicant applies for bail before the Court concerned, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 9. Liberty is also granted to the applicant to move discharge application, if permissible, before the court concerned, which shall be decided expeditiously after taking note of the settled law on this issue including the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and Others Versus State of U.P. and another, (2024) 10 SCC 690. A482 No. 6863 of 2025 2 10. Taking note of the facts of the case and also the observation made in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (Supra) and Musheer Alam (Supra), this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to observe that it is expected from the Police Officer/court concerned that for a period of 30 days from today or till the applicant applies for bail, whichever is earlier, he would not take any coercive action against the applicant in the aforesaid case. It is made clear that in this regard no application shall be entertained. 11. With the aforesaid observations, the present application is disposed of. August 26, 2025 ML/- A482 No. 6863 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench