HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9588 of 2025 Court No. - 34 HON'BLE TEJ PRATAP TIWARI, J. 1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed to quash the charge-sheet No.01 of 2023 dated 03.09.2023,and impugned cognizance and summoning order dated 30.04.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Special Sessions Trial No. 927 of 2024 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC, and Section 3(1)(Da) and 3(1) (Dha) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Kakori, District Lucknow. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants were not arrested during the course of investigation and the charge-sheet has been submitted against them. It is further submitted that the offence is punishable up to 7 years imprisonment. 4. 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. 5. 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sunil Kumar Maurya, Abhishek Yadav, Upendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Kamta Prasad And 4 Others .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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. 6. The application stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. November 13, 2025 NSC A482 No. 9588 of 2025 2 (Tej Pratap Tiwari,J.) Digitally signed by :- NARENDRA SINGH CHAUDHARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench