KHODAIZA BEGUM AND 5 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
NA528/26000/2025 · 2025-08-19
Sanjay Kumar Pachori
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 76865 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 76865 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:142718 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 26000 of 2025 Applicant :- Khodaiza Begum And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Srivastava,Harikesh Maurya,Muhd Shadab Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J. Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Kamleshwar Singh, learned A.G.A. 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 Complaint Case No.6637 of 2024, (Rintu @ Mahtab Vs. Khodiza Begum and others), under Sections 452, 323 of I.P.C., Police Station- Madanpur, District- Deoria, as well as cognizance/ summoning order 20.03.2025, pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge Judicial Magistrate Court No.25, Deoria.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits 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 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 :- 20.8.2025 Priya Digitally signed by :- PRIYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad