HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9573 of 2025 Court No. - 34 HON'BLE TEJ PRATAP TIWARI, J. Heard Mr. Sachidanand Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record. At the outset learned counsel for the applicant submitted that a supplementary affidavit has already been filed by him. The Bench Secretary confirms on the basis of details mentioned in the computer system before him wherein the supplementary affidavit application no.2/2025 (Bhagauti Prasad and Others vs. State of U.P. and Another) filed on 11.11.2025 is shown. The statement made by the aforesaid supplementary affidavit that in the prayer clause of the petition the date of summoning order has been wrongly mentioned as 05.4.2024 in place of 01.3.2023 and the date of filing charge sheet by the police before the learned trial court has been wrongly mentioned as 14.11.2023 in place of 22.5.2022 and in the summary clause date of summoning order has been wrongly mentioned as 01.3.2022 in place of 01.3.2023 due to typographical error. Looking to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and the nature of error occurred it seems that neither the error is deliberate nor intentional. In the interest of justice though the copy of supplementary affidavit is not available with the record of the instant application, prayer made by the aforesaid supplementary affidavit stands allowed. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed to set aside Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sachida Nand Tiwari, Naveen Giri Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Bhagauti Prasad And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) the summoning order dated 01.3.2023 passed by learned Special ADJ/ SC ST Act, Lucknow and to quash the charge sheet dated 22.5.2022 under case crime no.86/2022, under sections - 323, 504, 506 IPC & 3 (1) (Dha) & 3 (2) (VA) of SC/ ST Act, police station - Itaunja, District Lucknow. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant was not arrested during the course of investigation and the charge-sheet has been submitted against him. It is further submitted that the offence is punishable up to 7 years imprisonment. After some arguments, learned counsel for the applicant 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. November 13, 2025 mks A482 No. 9573 of 2025 2 (Tej Pratap Tiwari,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench