Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 49189 (ALL)

VISHAL SONI v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

NA528/15178/2025 · 2025-05-07

Sanjay Kumar Pachori

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Court No. - 72 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15178 of 2025 Applicant :- Vishal Soni Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Maurya,Vimal Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J. Sri Vimal Soni, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rahul, learned brief holder for the State and perused the material on record. The present application under Section 528 of the BNSS, has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case arising out of Case Crime No.605 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) and 351(3) BNS, Police Station- Chakeri, District- Kanpur Nagar, as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 22.11.2024 pending in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar. Learned counsel for the applicant 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 fats 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 cot 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 :- 8.5.2025 S.A. Digitally signed by :- SALMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad