HRIDESH YADAV AND 5 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
NA528/36018/2025 · 2025-09-17
Sanjay Kumar Pachori
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 97955 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 97955 (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. - 36018 of 2025 Court No. - 74 HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J. Heard Sri Aushim Luthra, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Karunakar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. The present application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 26919 of 2023 (Yadunandan Yadav vs. Hridesh Yadav and Another), under Sections 323, 325, 504 of I.P.C., P. S. Alinagar, District- Chandauli as well as cognizance/ summoning order dated 19.07.2025, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 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, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aushim Luthra, Irshad Husain Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Hridesh Yadav And 5 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)
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 18, 2025 MAA/- NA528 No. 36018 of 2025 2 (Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AZAD ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad