HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 34515 of 2025 Court No. - 74 HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J. Heard Sri Jaysingh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashwani Kumar Rai, 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. 6853 of 2022 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 21.8.2024 whereby the Magistrate took cognizance under Sections 354, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. against applicant no. 1 and under Sections 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. against brother of the applicant Arvind and mother-in-law of opposite party no. 2, Police Station- Lalitpur, District- Lalitpur, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur. 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 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 applicant, 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jaysingh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Jayhind Alias Jahandar Singh Alias Jayandar Singh Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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 A.P. Pandey NA528 No. 34515 of 2025 2 (Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad