HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5256 of 2026 Court No. - 81 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been preferred by the applicants with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 23rd December, 2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Azamgarh in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 5877 of 2025 (Suresh Yadav & Others Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 589 of 2024 under Sections 110, 115 (2), 352, 351 (3) and 317 (2) B.N.S. Police Station-Nizamabad District- Azamgarh only to the extent whereby the trial judge has enlarged the applicants on bail for a limited period of only 30 days while allowing the anticipatory bail application of the applicants. 3. Brief facts in short are that the applicants filed an anticipatory bail application under Case Crime No. 589/2024, registered at Police Station Nizamabad, District Azamgarh, for offences punishable under Sections 110, 115(2), 352, 351(3), and 117(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). As per the prosecution case based on the complaint of informant Kusum Devi, wife of Pataru Yadav, an ongoing land dispute exists between the parties. On 18.12.2024 at around 9:00 PM–10:00 PM, the named accused persons—Suresh Yadav, Suraj Yadav, Parmila, and others—armed with sticks (lathis), forcibly entered the informant's house, hurled abuses, and severely assaulted her husband, Pataru Yadav. When the informant's husband attempted to flee to the roof to save himself, the accused chased, brutally beat him, and caused severe injuries resulting in blood loss and unconsciousness. The accused allegedly threatened to burn the house before leaving. The injured was initially taken to Local Block Muhammadpur, referred to Sadar Hospital Azamgarh, and remained in critical condition under medical treatment. The application seeks anticipatory bail citing apprehension of arrest Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Janam Shahi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Suresh Yadav And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) in connection with the aforementioned crime. The said application has been partly allowed by the trial court vide impugned order dated 23rd December, 2025 while granting anticipatory bail to the applicants for a limited period of 30 days only. It is against this part of the order that the present criminal application has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that during the course of investigation or till the filing of charge-sheet the applicants have not been arrested by the Police and they followed the terms and conditions of notice under Section 35 (3) of B.N.S.S. The maximum punishment under the alleged offence as alleged against the applicants is below 7 years. It is further submitted that the learned trial judge has not applied his judicial mind and illegally granted anticipatory bail to the applicants for a period of only 30 days on the anticipatory bail application of the applicants while passing the impugned order. Once the anticipatory bail application has been allowed after submission of the police report and cognizance has been taken thereupon by the court below, then there was no occasion to limit the time of 30 days to grant anticipatory bail, it must be granted till the conclusion of the trial court imposing the normal conditions in view of the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State ( NCT of Delhi) reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1. On the above premise, learned counsel for the applicants urges that since the trial judge has committed gross error in imposing the limitation of 30 days time in granting anticipatory bail to the applicants while passing the impugned, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 528 B.N.S.S. only to that extent as mentioned above. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants by submitting that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the trial court, which may warrant any interference by this Court under Section 528 B.N.S.S. 6. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and gone through the records of the present criminal application including the impugned order. 7. While granting interim protection to the applicants, this Court has passed following order on 18th August, 2026: "1. From a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that while allowing the anticipatory bail application, the trial court has granted anticipatory bail for a period of only 30 days. In paragraph no. 6 of the impugned order reflects that NA528 No. 5256 of 2026 2 the charge-sheet had already been submitted by the Investigating Officer and cognizance had been taken by the concerned trial court. However, while allowing the anticipatory bail application, the trial court has not given any specific finding as to why the anticipatory bail has been granted for a period of only 30 days. The accused/applicants would be required to seek fresh interim bail application after the expiry of 30 days, which would result unnecessary harassment of the applicants. 1. Issue notice to the opposite party no. 2 through CJM concerned returnable at an early date. Steps be taken within one week. 2. Put up as fresh on 15th September, 2026. 3. Till the next date of listing, order dated 23.12.2025 granting anticipatory bail in favour of the applicants is extended. 4. The office is directed to call for a report from the concerned trial court as to why and under which provision of law, interim bail has been granted to the applicants for a period of only 30 days. 5. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the District Judge, Azamgarh for necessary compliance." 8. Pursuant to the order of the Court dated 18th August, 2026, the concerned trial judge has sent his explanation vide his letter dated 3rd September, 2026. Since this Court has not satisfied with the said explanation, therefore, this Court directed the concerned trial judge to submit his further explanation vide order dated 15th September, 2026. 9. Pursuant to the order dated 15th September, 2026, the concerned trial judge has sent his further explanation vide letter dated 22nd September, 2026 which has been brought on record along with the order-sheet. 10. In the further explanation dated 22nd September, 2026, the concerned trial judge has stated that because of wrong interpretation of law and misreading of facts, he has committed such mistakes while passing the impugned order. In his explanation, the concerned trial judge for the mistake being committed by him has tendered unconditional apology. 11. Since this Court is satisfied with he further explanation given by the concerned trial judge, therefore, no further orders are required to be passed in that regard. 12. It is settled law that any court of law like the Civil Court or the High Court or Apex Court can either allow the anticipatory bail application of the accused NA528 No. 5256 of 2026 3 granting bail to him till the conclusion of the trial imposing certain conditions or to reject the bail application considering the gravity of the offence. In the explanation given by the trial judge, he has also not mentioned the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case on which he has granted anticipatory bail to the applicants for a limited period of 30 days only. 13. As already stated by the concerned trial judge in his further explanation that he has judge has misread the facts and misinterpreted the law on the subject, while granting anticipatory bail to an accused under the order impugned, therefore, in the interest of justice the order impugned is liable to be modified to the extent that the anticipatory bail is granted to the applicants till the conclusion of the trial of the aforementioned criminal case. 14. Consequently, impugned order dated 23rd December, 2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Azamgarh in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 5877 of 2025 (Suresh Yadav & Others Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 589 of 2024 under Sections 110, 115 (2), 352, 351 (3) and 317 (2) B.N.S. Police Station-Nizamabad District-Azamgarh is modified to the extent that the applicants are granted anticipatory bail till the conclusion of the trial of the aforesaid criminal case. 15. The present criminal application stands disposed of finally. September 30, 2026 Sushil/- NA528 No. 5256 of 2026 4 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad