Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:143680 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 30693 of 2025 Applicant :- Yogesh Sharma @ Shailu And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Pandey,Prashant Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J. Sri Vinay Kumar Srivastava, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, which is taken on record. Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Vinay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri Vijay Kumar Mishra, 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. 14816 of 2022, as well as cognizance/ summoning order dated 12.12.2022 by which the learned Magistrate took cognizance under Sections 452, 354-B, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station- Etmaddaula, District Agra, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cort No. 8, Agra. 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 :- 21.8.2025 Ishan Digitally signed by :- ISHAN JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad