Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:108349 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 16643 of 2025 Applicant :- Shahil Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ahamad Farhan,Haya Rizvi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to correct the prayer clause. Sri Haya Rizvi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. 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 Complaint Case No. 474 of 2023, (Shahil and Others Vs. Pramukh Kumar), as well as cognizance/ summoning order 10.09.2024, under Sections 356, 323, 379, 504 and 324 of I.P.C., Police Station- B.B. Nagar, District- Bulandshahr, pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) / Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr. Learned counsel for the applicants 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 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 :- 7.7.2025 Akram Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AKRAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad