Allahabad High Court
Kapil Dev And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113112
Court No. - 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 21548 of 2025
Applicant :- Kapil Dev And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Singh Yadav, Brij Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Moti Lal, learned A.G.A.
2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing present Criminal Misc. Application and quash the Non-Bailable Warrant dated 18.04.2025 issued by the learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, IInd, Jaunpur in view of summoning order dated 22.07.2024 passed in Complaint Case No. 11 of 2021, SST No. 181/2024 (State Vs. Santosh and others), U/Ss. 376DA, 376D, 506 I.P.C., and U/Ss. 5/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Singramau, District- Jaunpur.
3. In para-2 of the application, the applicant has averred as under:
"2. That this is the first Criminal Misc. Application (U/s 528 of BNSS) is being filed before this Hon'ble Court, earlier to it neither any Criminal Misc. Application was filed nor is pending either before this Hon'ble Court or its Bench at Lucknow."
4. It is the case of the applicant that the applicant nos. 1 and 2 namely Kapil Dev and Mahendra had approached this Court while filing Application u/s 528 of BNSS No.1405 of 2025, Kapil Dev and others vs. State of U.P. in which on 10.03.2025 following orders were passed: -
"1. Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 22.07.2024 as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.11 of 2021, under Sections 367DA, 376D, 506 IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station - Mariahu, District Jaunpur.
3. Learned AGA submits that despite service of notice upon opposite party no.2 through police, no one appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants do not want to press the prayer for quashing of the proceedings. They wants to surrender before the court and apply for bail. He further submits that this Court may be pleased to direct the court concerned to consider the bail application of the applicants expeditiously within stipulated period of time as may be fixed by this Court.
4. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the present application is disposed of with the direction that in case, the applicants surrender before the Court concerned and apply for bail within two weeks from today, their bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously by the court below, in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51.
5. For reference, paras 100 to 100.11 of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) are being quoted as under;
"100. In conclusion, we would like to issue certain directions. These directions are meant for the investigating agencies and also for the courts. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to issue the following directions, which may be subject to State amendments:
100.1. The Government of India may consider the introduction of a separate enactment in the nature of a Bail Act so as to streamline the grant of bails.
100.2. The investigating agencies and their officers are duty-bound to comply with the mandate of Sections 41 and 41-A of the Code and the directions issued by this Court in Arnesh Kumar [Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 449] . Any dereliction on their part has to be brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the court followed by appropriate action.
100.3. The courts will have to satisfy themselves on the compliance of Sections 41 and 41-A of the Code. Any non-compliance would entitle the accused for grant of bail.
100.4. All the State Governments and the Union Territories are directed to facilitate Standing Orders for the procedure to be followed under Section 41 and 41-A of the Code while taking note of the order of the High Court of Delhi dated 7-2-2018 in Amandeep Singh Johar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Amandeep Singh Johar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13448] and the Standing Order issued by Delhi Police i.e. Standing Order 109 of 2020, to comply with the mandate of Section 41-A of the Code.
100.5. There need not be any insistence of a bail application while considering the application under Sections 88, 170, 204 and 209 of the Code.
100.6. There needs to be a strict compliance of the mandate laid down in the judgment of this Court in Siddharth [Siddharth v. State of U.P., (2022) 1 SCC 676 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 423].
100.7. The State and Central Governments will have to comply with the directions issued by this Court from time to time with respect to constitution of special courts. The High Court in consultation with the State Governments will have to undertake an exercise on the need for the special courts. The vacancies in the position of Presiding Officers of the special courts will have to be filled up expeditiously.
100.8. The High Courts are directed to undertake the exercise of finding out the undertrial prisoners who are not able to comply with the bail conditions. After doing so, appropriate action will have to be taken in light of Section 440 of the Code, facilitating the release.
100.9. While insisting upon sureties the mandate of Section 440 of the Code has to be kept in mind.
100.10. An exercise will have to be done in a similar manner to comply with the mandate of Section 436-A of the Code both at the district judiciary level and the High Court as earlier directed by this Court in Bhim Singh [Bhim Singh v. Union of India, (2015) 13 SCC 605 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 663] , followed by appropriate orders.
100.11. Bail applications ought to be disposed of within a period of two weeks except if the provisions mandate otherwise, with the exception being an intervening application. Applications for anticipatory bail are expected to be disposed of within a period of six weeks with the exception of any intervening application.
6. It is needless to mention that the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another; (2021) 10 SCC 773 has also approved for grant of interim bail till disposal of bail application. Para 6 of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) decided on 07.10.2021 is being quoted as under;
"6. We may also notice an aspect submitted by Mr Luthra that while issuing notice to consider bail, the trial court is not precluded from granting interim bail taking into consideration the conduct of the accused during the investigation which has not warranted arrest. On this aspect also we would give our imprimatur and naturally the bail application to be ultimately considered, would be guided by the statutory provisions."
7. For a period of two weeks from today or till disposal of bail application of applicants, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant no.1 has been arrested, he is in jail and the applicants seek to prefer appropriate bail application under the relevant provisions of law.
6. Learned A.G.A. has no objection to the same.
7. Considering the submissions raised at the Bar and the statements so sought to be made by them, the application stands disposed of. It is always open for the applicants to avail the remedies of enlargement on bail as permissible and advisable under law.
Order Date :- 15.7.2025
N.S.Rathour
(Vikas Budhwar, J)
