HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 35476 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J. Heard Sri Avanish Chandra Maurya, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Abhishek Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. The present application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 8317 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 122 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 110, 115(2), 333, 309(4), 351(2) and 352 of B.N.S., Police Station- Madhotanda, District Pilibhit as well as cognizance/ summoning order dated 02.08.2025, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants were not arrested during the course of investigation and the charge-sheet have been submitted against them. It is further submitted that the offence is punishable up to 7 years imprisonment. Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants is, hereby, refused. After some arguments, learned counsel for the applicants 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, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Avanish Chandra Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sunja Devi And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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. October 14, 2025 MAA/- NA528 No. 35476 of 2025 2 (Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AZAD ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad