Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:49157 Court No. - 72 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10856 of 2025 Applicant :- Rishi Kumar Alias Rishi Kapoor And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Harish Chandra,Sanjay Kumar Nigam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J. Supplementary affidavit filed in Court today is taken on record. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Nigam, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Tej Bhan Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. The present application under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No.8483 of 2023, (State Vs. Rishi Kapoor and others) arising out of Case Crime No.180 of 2022, under Sections 354, 323, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station-Shivli, District-Kanpur Dehat, as well as cognizance/ summoning order 2.2.2023 pending in the Court of Civil Judge (JD)/FTC (Crime against Women), Kanpur Dehat. 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 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 :- 5.4.2025/LN Tripathi Digitally signed by :- LALIT TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- LALIT TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad