HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 25239 of 2025 Court No. - 73 HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J. 1. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed the supplementary affidavit of applicant, today in court, which is taken on record. Office is directed to proceed accordingly. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. 3. The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS to quash the entire proceeding including charge sheet dated 03.03.2025 as well as cognizance order dated 14.05.2025 in Special Session Trial No.406 of 2025 (State Vs. Rakesh Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No. 024 of 2025 under Sections 131, 115(2), 351(3), 352, 299 B.N.S and 3(1)द, ध, 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, , Police Station- Sadat, District- Ghazipur. 4. As per the FIR version, on the date of the incident in question i.e. 13.2.2025 at about 2:10 AM, the named accused, alongwith 10 to 12 unknown persons, all of a sudden attacked the first informant and others, broke statue, and uttered obscene language in relation to his caste, while the first informant was going for immersion of the statue of Sri Sant Ravidas. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant was not named in the FIR, however, at a subsequent stage, on the statement of the injured, his name has been surfaced, however, no source of information has been disclosed by the injured. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rahul Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Virendra Kumar, G.A. Rakesh Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has contended that both the injured, namely, Raj Mangal and Sumit Kumar have taken the names of present applicant and others who were involved in the incident dated 13.2.2025, and their names were subsequently surfaced. It is further submitted that it may be a case of identification, which can be ascertained by conducting a test identification parade. 7. After due deliberation at length, learned counsel for the applicant has chosen not to press the instant application on merits. However, he has urged for interim protection to the present applicant so that he may appear before the court below and participate in the court proceedings. It is submitted that present applicant is ready and willing to appear before the court below to cooperate in the trial. He has never intended to ignore the court proceedings. As such, some protection may be granted. 8. Learned A.G.A. has no objection in case protection is granted to the present applicant to enable him to appear before the court below to participate in the court proceedings. 9. In this conspectus, as above, no useful purpose would be served to keep this matter pending, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose off the present application, without making any observation on the merits of the case as mentioned in the present application, with a direction that in case present applicant appears/surrenders and move bail application before the court below within a period of four weeks from today, same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks thereafter. 10. For a period of eight weeks or till the decision on the bail application, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the present applicant in aforesaid criminal case. 11. As per observation made above, instant application is disposed off. September 1, 2025 vkg NA528 No. 25239 of 2025 2 (Dinesh Pathak,J.) Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad