Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:144777 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 6441 of 2025 Applicant :- Nitin Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Madan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J. Sri Madan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State are present. The present application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 455 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs. Israr and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 265 of 2022, under Sections 420, 406, 120-B of I.P.C., Police Station- Dilari, District- Moradabad, as well as cognizance/ summoning order dated 15.03.2024 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Thakurdwara, District Moradabad. Learned counsel for the applicant fairly admits that this is a case of sanctioning of loan over the property which has been already sold in favour of another person after mortgaging the same. He further 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. Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant is, hereby, refused. 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 applicant, 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. Order Date :- 21.8.2025 A. Mandhani Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK MANDHANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad