HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 34501 of 2025 Court No. - 74 HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J. Sri S.P.S. Chauhan, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 today, which is taken on record. Sri Umesh Chandra Prajapati, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S.P.S. Chauhan and Sri Prem Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and Sri B.N. Upadhyay, 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. 19941 of 2023, as well as cognizance/ summoning order dated 02.07.2025 by which the learned Magistrate took cognizance under Sections 494, 504, 506, 120-B of I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali, District Fatehur, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Fatehpur. 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Umesh Chandra Prajapati, Vinod Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Anju Devi Modanwal And 10 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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. September 10, 2025 Ishan NA528 No. 34501 of 2025 2 (Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.) Digitally signed by :- ISHAN JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad