Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51795 Court No. - 72 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 9875 of 2025 Applicant :- Aseen And 8 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Arvind Kumar Verma,G.A.,Kumar Vikrant Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. The present application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4684 of 2025, (State Vs. Aseen and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 237 of 2022, under Sections 147, 504, 506, 427 of I.P.C., Police Station- Mahavan, District- Mathura, as well as cognizance/ summoning order 5.2.2025 pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)/F.T.C., Mathura. 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 :- 9.4.2025 A.P. Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad