NA528/37051/2026 of RANJANA GAUD AND 2 OTHERS Vs STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER on 5 October 2026

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37051 of 2026 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J. Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Kamleshwar Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record. The present application under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. WSCC-02992 arising out of Case Crime No. 104 of 2026, under Sections - 115 (2), 352, 352(3) B.N.S., Police Station- Walterganj, District- Basti, as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 04.08.2026 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Court No. 10, Basti. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants were not arrested during the course of investigation and the charge-sheet have been submitted against them. It is further submitted 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jitendra Singh, Vipin Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ranjana Gaud And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)

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. (Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.) October 6, 2026 Pravin NA528 No. 37051 of 2026 2

Digitally signed by :- PRAVIN VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad