Abhishek Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another
- Neutral2026:AHC:106199
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A prayer to quash a charge sheet and proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be granted at a stage where the arguments raised involve factual disputes and appraisal of evidence, as such matters are not appropriate for determination in a quashing petition but require to be decided on the merits during trial. Where an applicant facing a non-bailable warrant is willing to appear and surrender before the court, the court may direct that the warrant be kept in abeyance for a reasonable period to allow the applicant to appear and apply for bail, which shall then be considered and decided in accordance with law on the basis of the nature of the offence alleged and the attending facts and circumstances of the case.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Afzal Ahmad, Ashwani Kumar Rai, Manoj Kumar Singh, Sarvesh Kumar Singh, Shivajee Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 82
HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing of charge sheet dated 11.06.2021 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 2576 of 2022 (State Vs. Vindhyachal and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 07 of 2018, under Sections 272, 273 I.P.C. and Section 60, 72 of Excise Act, Police Station Nagra, District- Ballia, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.Learned counsel further submits that non bailable warrant has also been issued against the applicant.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the materials brought on record, it does not appear to be a fit case for quashing. Thus, the prayer for quashing of same is hereby refused, at this stage as the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.
5. However, looking at the nature of offence alleged and attending facts and circumstances of the case, as have been brought on record, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within two weeks from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.
6. For a period of two weeks from today, the non-bailable warrant issued against the applicant shall be kept in abeyance.
7. The present application stands disposed of.
(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
May 7, 2026
Mustaqeem.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free