Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 227 (ALL)

DEEPAK v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

NA528/6586/2026 · 2026-03-17

Sanjay Kumar Pachori

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 6586 of 2026 Court No. - 74 HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J. Heard Sri Ram Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.N. Upadhyay, learned Brief holder for the State and perused the material on record. The present application under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 413 of 2025, (State Vs. Horilal and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 315 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 190, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 121(1), 125, 132, 117(2) of BNS, Police Station- Aadampur, District- Amroha, as well as cognizance/ summoning order 24.06.2025, pending in the Court of C.J.M., Amroha. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was not arrested during the course of investigation and the charge-sheet has been submitted against him. It is further submitted that the offences are 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 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) : Ram Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Deepak .....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. March 18, 2026 A.N. Mishra NA528 No. 6586 of 2026 2 (Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMARNATH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- AMARNATH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad