KALI CHARAN AND 3 OTHERS v. State of U.P. AND ANOTHER
A482/36023/2024 · 2025-10-13
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 193490 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 193490 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36023 of 2024 Court No. - 82 HON'BLE TEJ PRATAP TIWARI, J.
1. 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.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 249 of 2021, (State Vs. Kali Charan and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 166 of 2018, under Sections 323, 506, 324, 308 of I.P.C., Police Station- Aliganj, District- Bareilly, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Aonla, District Bareilly.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant 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.
4. 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.
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 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anurag Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sudarshan Singh Kali Charan And 3 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)
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. October 14, 2025 Manoj A482 No. 36023 of 2024 2 (Tej Pratap Tiwari,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad