Allahabad High Court
Vishal Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:174674
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 6382 of 2025
Vishal Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Punya Sheel Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Krishna Agarawal
Court No. - 68
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Punya Sheel Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
2. Sri Krishna Agarawal is present in the Court and submitted that he has received notice only but instructions have been given to some other counsel.
3. Be that as it may, Sri Krishna Agarawal is present before this Court, therefore, consider him as counsel for opposite party no.2.
4. The instant application has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 1831 of 2018 (Union of India Vs. Vishal Kumar), under Section 276C(2) read-with Section 278E of Income Tax Act, 1961, P.S. Civil Lines, District Meerut, as well as summoning order dated 11.11.2019 and B.W. dated 05.09.2024.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant does not want to press the prayer for quashing of the proceedings. He wants to surrender before the court below 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 applicant expeditiously within stipulated period of time as may be fixed by this Court.
6. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the present application is disposed of with the direction that in case, the applicant surrenders before the Court concerned and applies for bail within three weeks from today, his 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.
7. 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."
8. 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 the 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."
9. It is further provided that after appearance, the applicant will move an application before the court below under Section 205 Cr.P.C. for his exemption from personal appearance. In case such an application is moved, the court below will decide the same in view of the guidelines of this Court mentioned in paragraphs No. 14 and 15 of the judgement in Shlok Yadav vs. State of U.P. and another; application u/s 482 No. 2937 of 2025.
10. For a period of three weeks from today or till appearance of the applicant before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
September 25, 2025
Kpy
