Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 81323 (ALL)

PAWAN SRIVASTAVA v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

NA528/34220/2025 · 2025-09-08

Sanjay Kumar Pachori

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 34220 of 2025 Court No. - 74 HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J. Sri Rajesh Narain Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Chavipal Singh, brief holder 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. 99446 of 2023, as well as cognizance/ summoning order dated 29.07.2024 by which the learned Magistrate took cognizance under Sections 354, 323, 504, 427, 379 of I.P.C., Police Station- Sigra, District Varanasi, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 8, Varanasi. Learned counsel for the applicant 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 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 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajesh Narain Srivastva Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Pawan Srivastava .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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. September 9, 2025 Ishan NA528 No. 34220 of 2025 2 (Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.) Digitally signed by :- ISHAN JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad