HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 40757 of 2025 Court No. - 78 HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. This application under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet, cognizance / summoning order dated 31.5.2025 as well as the entire proceedings in Special Session Trial No. 735 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 68 of 2025, under Sections 74 of BNS and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Sungarhi, District Pilibhit pending before the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Pilibhit and further to stay further 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 alleged offences 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. Impugned order is illegal and without application of judicial mind. 4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rahul Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ravi Shanker Alias Ravi .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 6. 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 of 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 applicant are not made out and the record shows that a cognizable offence is clearly made out against the applicant. Sufficient evidence has been collected against the applicant during the course of investigation. Hence, prayer made in the application is refused. 7. In the last, learned counsel for the applicant has urged that direction for expeditious disposal of the bail application of the applicant be given in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825. 8. Hence, it is observed that in case the applicant surrenders before the Court concerned and applies for bail within 20 days from today, his bail application 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 case (supra). For a period of 20 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. 9. It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicant to surrender before the court concerned. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the application stands disposed of. October 17, 2025 safi NA528 No. 40757 of 2025 2 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad