Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:28900 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 4286 of 2025 Applicant :- Geeta Devi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri. V.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Muniraj Mehrotra, learned AGA for the State. 2. This is an application Under Section 528 of BNSS filed for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2475 of 2022 (State Vs. Geeta Devi and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 195 of 2022, under Section 147, 332, 353 IPC, P.S. Raya, District Mathura, pending in the Court of A.C.J.M.-I, Mathura. 3 Learned counsel for the applicants submits that a first information report stood lodged by the opposite party No. 2 against the applicants along with six others and one unnamed accused with an allegation that when the opposite party No. 2 who happens to be one of the functionaries of the Electricity Department has gone for checking the electricity bills and for realizing the payment that the applicants No. 1 and 2 along with others barged upon him and thereafter inflicted injuries upon one Ravindra Son of Gajendra Singh. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the charge sheet has been submitted against the applicants and those who were present being Neeraj, Rahul, Pradeep, Smt. Kiran, they have been exonerated. He further submits that there happens to be contradiction in the statement under Section 161 as well as the medical report which shows that injuries were simple in nature and there has been no site-plan prepared so as to depict the presence of the applicants. 4. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that offences are made out against the applicants. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that offences do made out against the applicants. The first information report had been lodged against the applicants who had been marked as accused and furrther the statement of Ravindra (injured) itself pin-points applicants No. 1 and 2 with respect to inflicting injuries and there happens to be injury also which is at page 90 of the paper book. Moreover, so far as the discrepancy sought to be shown by the learned counsel for the applicants with regard to incorrect procedure being adopted for making the site- plan is concerned, the same might be a defence and so far as the alibi of non-presence of the applicants is concerned, the same is also a defence which can only be taken when the trial commences. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants seeks direction for consideration of his bail application in light of the judgment in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another; decided on 07.10.2021 in S.L.P. No.5191 of 2021 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The Court is of the opinion that cognizable offenses are made out from the FIR and whatever arguments are being sought to be raised centers around factual issues which cannot be gone into the present proceedings. Thus, interference is declined and the application is consigned to record. 9. In the opinion of the Court, once a bail application is preferred then the same shall be considered with most expeditions strictly as per the law of the land without any delay. Order Date :- 28.2.2025 Rajesh Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad