Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:49639 Court No. - 72 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 11087 of 2025 Applicant :- Rajneesh Yadav Alias Bhola Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Vishvakarma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Vishvakarma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pushp Raj Singh, learned brief holder 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. 60441 of 2016 (State Vs. Rajneesh Yadav @ Bhola), arising out of Case Crime No. 377 of 2015, under Sections 379, 411 of I.P.C., Police Station- New Agra, District- Agra, as well as order dated 22.05.2017, whereby non bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant, pending in the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was not arrested during the course of investigation and the charge-sheet have 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 judgments 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 except 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 :- 7.4.2025 A.P. Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad