Danish And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
- Neutral2026:AHC:105948
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an application seeks quashing of a chargesheet and cognizance order, and the court finds upon examination of the FIR, the impugned order, and the chargesheet that no ground appears available on which the impugned order and entire proceedings can be set aside, the application for quashing shall be refused. Where an accused seeks quashing of proceedings and the court refuses to interfere, but the accused is willing to surrender and seek bail, the court may impose a reasonable time period within which the accused must surrender and apply for bail, with a direction that any such bail application shall be considered expeditiously in accordance with law, and may direct that no coercive action shall be taken against the accused during that period.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA appearing for the State.
3. This present application has been filed for seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 02.12.2025 as well as cognizance order dated 07.01.2026 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur, in Criminal case. No.157 of 2026 (State Vs. Danish and others), arising out of case crime no. 687 of 2025, under sections 69, 351 (3) of B.N.S., Police Station Hapur Nagar, District- Hapur.
4. On perusal of the narration of FIR as well as impugned order and chargesheet, this Court does not find it to be a case where interference of this Court is required. No such ground appears to be available in the present application, on the basis of which, impugned order along with chargesheet and entire proceedings of the said case, can be set aside.
5. Accordingly, the prayer sought through the instant application, is refused.
6. After some arguments, learned counsel for applicants has submitted that liberty may be granted to applicants to surrender before the court concerned and apply for bail to which learned AGA has no objection.
7. In view of the aforesaid, the instant application is finally disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that in case, the applicants surrender before the court concerned within a period of four weeks from today and apply for bail, their bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law laid down in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2022 SCC OnLine SC 825).
8. However, it is made clear that till four weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants herein in pursuance of aforesaid case.
(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
May 7, 2026
Radhika
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