BABUNANDAN YADAV AND 2 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
NA528/35909/2025 · 2025-09-17
Sanjay Kumar Pachori
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 97041 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 97041 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 35909 of 2025 Court No. - 74 HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J. Heard Sri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Madhvendra Pratap Singh, 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. 314 of 2018 as well as cognizance/ summoning order dated 17.10.2018 whereby the Magistrate took cognizance under Sections 323, 504, 506 of of I.P.C., Police Station- Baburi, District- Chandauli, pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Chakiya, Chandauli.
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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Babunandan Yadav And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And Another .....Opposite Party(s)
exercise of discretion on the part of the court in favour of the accused. The application stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. September 18, 2025 A.P. Pandey NA528 No. 35909 of 2025 2 (Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad