HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 39432 of 2025 Court No. - 78 HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.4525 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No.413 of 2015 under Sections 9, 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, Police Station- Chowk, District- Maharajganj pending in the Court of A.C.J.M., Maharajganj. Further prayer has been made to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel of the applicant that the FIR has been lodged on false grounds while the applicant has not committed any offence. The police has also submitted charge sheet on the basis of insufficient evidence against the applicant. Essential ingredients to constitute the offences alleged are lacking. The present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention. Learned counsel for the applicant pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. 4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer. 5. From the perusal of the record, I find no reason to quash the proceedings of the criminal case filed against the applicant or to stay the proceedings. As is evident, all the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 528 BNSS. At this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that offences levelled against the applicants are not made out. Hence, prayer made in the application is refused. 6. In the last, learned counsel for the applicants has urged that direction for expeditious disposal of the bail application of the applicants be given. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashish Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rajendra And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 7. Hence, it is observed that in case the applicants surrender before the court below and apply for bail within thirty days from today, the same shall be considered and decided by the Court concerned in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825. For a period of thirty days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. 8. It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicants to surrender and apply for bail before the Court concerned. 9. With the above observations, the application stands disposed of. October 10, 2025 Fhd NA528 No. 39432 of 2025 2 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad