MAHENDRA KUMAR AND 3 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
NA528/27871/2025 · 2025-08-18
Sanjay Kumar Pachori
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 79568 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 79568 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141679 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 27871 of 2025 Applicant :- Mahendra Kumar And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Patel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J. Sri Vinay Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the applicants and Ms. Ladli Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. The present application under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 394 of 2023, (Ravi Kumar Vs. Mahendra Kumar and others) as well as cognizance/ summoning
order 5.3.2025, under Sections 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C., P.S. Khutahan, District Jaunpur pending in the Court of A.C.J.M.-Vth, Jaunpur.
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 :- 19.8.2025 Kpy Digitally signed by :- KAVLESHWAR PRASAD YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad