Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:82650 Court No. - 72 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15502 of 2025 Applicant :- Arvind And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Singh,G.S. Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J. Heard Sri Deepak Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Pushp Raj Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 857 of 2024, (State Vs. Arvind & ors), arising out of Case Crime No.66 of 2024, under Sections 147, 149, 452, 323, 504 & 506 of I.P.C., Police Station- Milak, District- Rampur, as well as cognizance/ summoning order dated 22.11.2024 pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)-II, Rampur. 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, 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 :- 17.5.2025 P Kesari Digitally signed by :- PRACHI KESARWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad