# Alok Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 28
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-04
- **Case number:** Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 27980 of 2025
- **Bench:** Sameer Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/alok-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53905
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to:
"The only issue before this Court in the instant
application is that if without sanction chargesheet has been filed within stipulated period
even for the offences for which sanction was
necessary for cognizance then whether chargesheet can be said to be incomplete charge-sheet
and whether in such scenario an accused can be
released on compulsory bail under Section
167(2) Cr.P.C."

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - SS. 389, 406,
420, 506, 411, 120B - The Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 - S 13 - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 167(2)
- Default/Compulsory bail - Charge-sheet
filed within stipulated period but without
sanction under S. 13 P.C. Act - whether
incomplete charge-sheet - S. 173(2)
Cr.P.C. does not require sanction order to
accompany police report - S. 173(5)
Cr.P.C. documents do not include sanction
-

Filing
charge-sheet
completes
investigation
-
Sanction
-
obtaining
sanction not part of investigation Sanction
is an enabling provision to prosecute,
which is totally separate from the concept
of
investigation
Default
bail
-
right
extinguishes
once
charge-sheet
filed
within stipulated time Cognizance without
sanction - illegality irrelevant for S. 167(2)
- Ritu Chhabaria - distinguished - Order in
Ashok Kumar Srivastava held per incuriam
for non-consideration of binding Supreme
Court precedents.
Held: Charge-sheet filed within time, even
without sanction, is not incomplete -Default bail
cannot be granted once charge-sheet is filed
within stipulated period - Sanction irrelevant for
determining
completion
of
investigation
-
Cognizance without sanction does not confer
right to default bail - No illegality in the
impugned order - Application stands dismissed
accordingly. (Paras 32,34,35,41,42) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Sanjay Dutt v. State (1994) 5 SCC 410;
Judgebir Singh @ Jasbir Singh Samra v.
NIA (2023) 17 SCC 48; Narendra Kumar
Amin v. CBI (2015) 3 SCC 417; CBI v. R.S.
Pai (2002) 5 SCC 82; Narayan Rao v. State
of A.P. AIR 1957 SC 737; Suresh Kumar
Bhikamchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra
(2013) 3 SCC 77; K. Veeraswamy v. Union
of India (1991) 3 SCC 655; Ritu Chhabaria
v. Union of India (2024) 12 SCC 116; Ashok
Kumar Srivastava and another Vs. State of U.P.
(Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 21254 of
2025) (Held to be per incuriam )

List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian
Penal Code, 1860; Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988; Constitution of India.

List of Keywords
Incomplete
charge-sheet,
default
bail/
compulsory bail, indefeasible right, sanction,
cognizance, police report, stipulated period,
fundamental right, per incuriam, investigation,
supplementary charge-sheet.

Case Arising From
Application U/S 528 BNSS
Arising out of Case Crime No. 93 of 2024, P.S.
Kotwali, District Gorakhpur.
9 All. Alok Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
29
Challenged order dated 23.07.2025 rejecting
default bail.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Applicant:
Sri Amarnath Tripathi,Sri Narendra Kumar
Advs. for the Respondents (State):
G.A., Sri Imran Khan, A.G.A., Sri Rajeev Dhar
Dwivedi, A.G.A.

## Text

28 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dated 23.10.2024 passed by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court
No.5, Meerut are hereby quashed in
respect of applicant.
---------
(2025) 9 ILRA 28
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 27980 of 2025

Alok Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Amarnath Tripathi, Narendra Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to:
"The only issue before this Court in the instant
application is that if without sanction chargesheet has been filed within stipulated period
even for the offences for which sanction was
necessary for cognizance then whether chargesheet can be said to be incomplete charge-sheet
and whether in such scenario an accused can be
released on compulsory bail under Section
167(2) Cr.P.C."

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - SS. 389, 406,
420, 506, 411, 120B - The Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 - S 13 - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 167(2)
- Default/Compulsory bail - Charge-sheet
filed within stipulated period but without
sanction under S. 13 P.C. Act - whether
incomplete charge-sheet - S. 173(2)
Cr.P.C. does not require sanction order to
accompany police report - S. 173(5)
Cr.P.C. documents do not include sanction
-

Filing
charge-sheet
completes
investigation
-
Sanction
-
obtaining
sanction not part of investigation Sanction
is an enabling provision to prosecute,
which is totally separate from the concept
of
investigation
Default
bail
-
right
extinguishes
once
charge-sheet
filed
within stipulated time Cognizance without
sanction - illegality irrelevant for S. 167(2)
- Ritu Chhabaria - distinguished - Order in
Ashok Kumar Srivastava held per incuriam
for non-consideration of binding Supreme
Court precedents.
Held: Charge-sheet filed within time, even
without sanction, is not incomplete -Default bail
cannot be granted once charge-sheet is filed
within stipulated period - Sanction irrelevant for
determining
completion
of
investigation
-
Cognizance without sanction does not confer
right to default bail - No illegality in the
impugned order - Application stands dismissed
accordingly. (Paras 32,34,35,41,42) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Sanjay Dutt v. State (1994) 5 SCC 410;
Judgebir Singh @ Jasbir Singh Samra v.
NIA (2023) 17 SCC 48; Narendra Kumar
Amin v. CBI (2015) 3 SCC 417; CBI v. R.S.
Pai (2002) 5 SCC 82; Narayan Rao v. State
of A.P. AIR 1957 SC 737; Suresh Kumar
Bhikamchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra
(2013) 3 SCC 77; K. Veeraswamy v. Union
of India (1991) 3 SCC 655; Ritu Chhabaria
v. Union of India (2024) 12 SCC 116; Ashok
Kumar Srivastava and another Vs. State of U.P.
(Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 21254 of
2025) (Held to be per incuriam )

List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian
Penal Code, 1860; Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988; Constitution of India.

List of Keywords
Incomplete
charge-sheet,
default
bail/
compulsory bail, indefeasible right, sanction,
cognizance, police report, stipulated period,
fundamental right, per incuriam, investigation,
supplementary charge-sheet.

Case Arising From
Application U/S 528 BNSS
Arising out of Case Crime No. 93 of 2024, P.S.
Kotwali, District Gorakhpur.
9 All. Alok Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
29
Challenged order dated 23.07.2025 rejecting
default bail.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Applicant:
Sri Amarnath Tripathi,Sri Narendra Kumar
Advs. for the Respondents (State):
G.A., Sri Imran Khan, A.G.A., Sri Rajeev Dhar
Dwivedi, A.G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sameer Jain, J.)

1. Heard Sri Amarnath Tripathi,
learned counsel for applicant and Sri Imran
Khan as well as Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi,
learned Additional Government Advocates
for the State.

2. The instant application has been
filed by the applicant with a prayer to
quash the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge
(P.C. Act) Court No.2 Gorakhpur whereby
his application to release him on default
bail has been rejected arising out of Case
Crime No. 93 of 2024, under Sections 389,
406, 420, 506, 411, 120B IPC and Section
13 of The Prevention of Corruption Act,
Police Station Kotwali, District Gorakhpur.

Brief facts of the case:-

3. FIR of the present case was lodged
on 09.04.2024 against applicant and others
under Sections 379, 406, 420, 506 IPC and
Section 13 Prevention of Corruption Act
(in short P.C. Act).

4. After registration of the FIR
investigation was commenced and on
05.06.2024 charge-sheet has been filed
against
applicant
for
offences
under
Sections 389, 406, 420, 506 IPC and
Section 13 P.C. Act and Section 411 IPC
read with Section 120B IPC and on
07.06.2024, Magistrate concerned took the
cognizance but it reflects, charge-sheet has
been filed without sanction, which was
obtained subsequently on 22.11.2024 and
was forwarded to the court on 22.07.2025.

5. It reflects, according to applicant as
charge-sheet against him was filed without
sanction,
therefore,
the
same
was
incomplete thus applicant moved an
application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.
with a prayer to release him on compulsory
bail on the ground that charge-sheet was
incomplete and cognizance was bad but
vide
order
dated
23.07.2025
court
concerned dismissed his application. Hence
the instant application.

Submissions advanced on behalf of
applicant:

6. Learned counsel for applicant
submits, although charge-sheet in the
present matter has been filed on 05.06.2024
which was within the prescribed time
provided under Section 167 Cr.P.C. but as
charge-sheet against applicant was also
filed for offence under Section 13 P.C. Act,
therefore, for cognizance sanction was
necessary but without sanction chargesheet has been filed against him thus
charge-sheet dated 05.06.2024 filed against
applicant was incomplete charge-sheet and
it cannot be said in the instant matter
investigation has been completed within
prescribed time and therefore applicant was
entitled to be released on default bail under
Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.

7. He further submits, it appears, as
prescribed time of 60 days was going to
expire and sanction could not be obtained
against applicant, therefore only with
intention to defeat the indefeasible right of
applicant to release him on compulsory bail
provided under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.
30 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
charge-sheet has been filed, which was not
permissible.

8. He further submits, as per Section
167(2) Cr.P.C. if within prescribed time
which was 60 days in the present case
investigation has not been completed then
an accused is entitled to be released on
compulsory bail. He further submits, in
present case, charge-sheet has also been
filed for offence relates to P.C. Act,
therefore, along with charge-sheet sanction
order must also be filed but only to defeat
the right of applicant provided under
Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. charge-sheet has
been filed without sanction. He next
submits,
as
incomplete
charge-sheet
without sanction does not contemplate the
police report provided under Section 173(2)
Cr.P.C. and therefore applicant was entitled
to be released on default bail under Section
167(2) Cr.P.C.

9. He further submits, right of an
accused to release on default bail under
Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is his fundamental
right under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India
if
investigation
has
not
been
completed within prescribed time and this
right
cannot
be
extinguished
if
Investigating
Officer
filed
incomplete
charge-sheet only with intention to defeat
his right of default bail under Section
167(2) Cr.P.C.

10. He further submits, the right of an
accused to release him on compulsory bail
under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is his
indefeasible right and if charge-sheet
within stipulated period of time has not
been filed or incomplete charge-sheet has
been filed then court has no other option
except to release him on default bail if he
makes prayer to release him on bail.

11. Learned counsel for applicant
placed reliance on the judgment passed by
the Apex Court in the case of Ritu
Chhabaria Vs. Union of India (2024) 12
SCC 116 and submitted, in this case the
Supreme Court categorically deprecated the
practice of Investigating Officer to file
incomplete charge-sheet with intention to
defeat the indefeasible right of an accused
to release him on default bail under Section
167(2) Cr.P.C.

12. He further submits, in the case of
Ritu Chhabaria (supra) also Investigating
Officer filed incomplete charge-sheet and
Supreme Court after considering this fact
observed that right of default bail under
Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is not merely
statutory but a fundamental right which
flows from Article 21 of Constitution of
India and was pleased to release the
accused on compulsory bail under Section
167(2) Cr.P.C.

13. Learned counsel for the applicant
also placed reliance on the order dated
11.07.2025 passed by this Bench in
Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 21254 of
2025 (Ashok Kumar Srivastava and
another Vs. State of U.P.) and submitted
that in that case also without sanction
charge-sheet
was
filed
but
after
considering
the
judgment
of
Ritu
Chhabaria
(supra)
this
Bench
by
observing that the charge-sheet against
the accused was incomplete directed the
accused to release on default bail.

14. He further submits, therefore,
order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the court
concerned is illegal and is liable to be set
aside and applicant should be directed to
release on compulsory bail under Section
167(2) Cr.P.C.
9 All. Alok Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
31

Submissions advanced on behalf of
State:

15. Per contra, learned Additional
Government Advocates opposed the prayer
and submitted that admittedly in the present
matter charge-sheet against applicant has
been filed on 05.06.2024 i.e. within the
stipulated time of 60 days and therefore
applicant cannot claim to be released on
default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.

16. They further submitted that law is
by far now settled that as soon as chargesheet is submitted the right of an accused to
release him on compulsory bail under
Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is extinguished.

17. They next submitted that however
from
the
record
it
reflects,
while
forwarding the charge-sheet to the court
concerned on 05.06.2024 sanction till date
could not be obtained against the applicant
and without sanction charge-sheet has been
filed against him also for offence under
Section 13 P.C. Act and even without
sanction
court
concerned
took
the
cognizance but by virtue of provisions of
Prevention of Corruption Act cognizance
taken by the court though may be illegal
but on this ground applicant cannot be
released on default bail under Section
167(2) Cr.P.C.

18.
They
further
submitted
that
obtaining sanction against an accused not
the
part
of
the
investigation
and
investigation relates to the facts of the case
investigated by the Investigating Officer
and
after
completing
investigation
Investigating Officer forwards his report to
the competent authority for sanction and as
soon as he forwards his report the
investigation
stands
completed
and
therefore even if sanction could not be
obtained
and
without
sanction
if
Investigating Officer forwarded the chargesheet to the court then also it cannot be said
that the charge-sheet filed by him was
incomplete charge-sheet. They further
submitted that as soon as charge-sheet
arrived in the court the right of an accused
to release him on default bail under Section
167(2) Cr.P.C. stands extinguished if said
charge-sheet
has
been
filed
within
stipulated period of time.

19. They further submitted that in the
present matter admittedly charge-sheet has
been filed without sanction but it has been
filed within stipulated period and therefore
court concerned rightly dismissed the
application filed by the applicant to release
him on default bail under Section 167(2)
Cr.P.C.

20. They placed reliance on the
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the
case of Judgebir Singh @ Jasbir Singh
Samra @ Jasbir and others Vs. National
Investigation Agency (2023) 17 SCC 48.
They further submitted that while passing
the impugned order dated 23.07.2025 court
concerned also considered this judgment of
the Apex Court passed in the case of
Judgebir Singh (supra).

21.
They
further
submitted
that
therefore instant application filed by the
applicant is devoid of merits and it should
be dismissed.

Analysis:

22. I have heard both the parties and
perused the record of the case.

23. The only issue before this Court in
the instant application is that if without
sanction charge-sheet has been filed within
32 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
stipulated period even for the offences for
which
sanction
was
necessary
for
cognizance then whether charge-sheet can
be said to be incomplete charge-sheet and
whether in such scenario an accused can be
released on compulsory bail under Section
167(2) Cr.P.C.

24. From perusal of Section 167(2)
Cr.P.C. it reflects, if a person is arrested and
detained in custody and investigation could
not be concluded within stipulated period of
time which was 60 days in the present matter
then an accused shall be released on bail
therefore section 167(2) Cr.P.C. contemplates
default or compulsory bail.

25. The Constitution Bench of the
Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Dutt Vs.
State (1994) 5 SCC 410 held that in case
of non completion of investigation within
stipulated period of time the indefeasible
right accrues to an accused to release him
on bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.,
however, in this case Apex Court further
observed that if before making prayer to
release him on bail charge-sheet has been
submitted then right of an accused to
release him on compulsory bail under
Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. stands extinguished.

26. In case at hand, however admittedly
within stipulated period of time charge-sheet
has been filed but without sanction which
was mandatory for taking cognizance for
offence under Section 13 P.C. Act and
therefore to analyse whether charge-sheet
filed against applicant was incomplete it is
necessary to go through Section 173(2)
Cr.P.C. which describes the prescribed form
of police report i.e. charge-sheet.

27. As per Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. a
police report i.e. charge-sheet should be in the
form prescribed by the State Government
stating:-

(a) the names of the parties;

(b) the nature of the information;

(c) the names of the persons who
appeare
to
be
acquainted
with
the
circumstances of the case;

(d) whether any offence appears to
have been committed and, if so, by whom;

(e) whether the accused has been
arrested;

(f) whether he has been released on
his bond and if so whether with or without
sureties;

(g) whether he has been forwarded
in custody under Section 170; and

(h) whether the report of the
medical examination of the woman has
been attached where investigation relates to
an offence under Sections 376, 376A,
376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA,
376DB or Section 376E of the Indian Penal
Code

28. Therefore, from the provisions of
Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. it could not be
reflected, obtaining sanction is also one of the
requirement in forwarding the police report
i.e. charge-sheet.

29. Further, however, Section 173(5)
Cr.P.C. states that when such report i.e.
police report is in respect of an accused to
which Section 170 applies the police officer
shall forward to the Magistrate along with the
report:-
9 All. Alok Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
33

(a) all documents or relevant
extracts thereof on which the prosecution
proposes to rely other than those already
sent to the Magistrate during investigation;
and

(b) the statements recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. of all the persons
whom the prosecution proposes to examine
as its witnesses.

30. Therefore, from Section 173(5)(a)
Cr.P.C. it reflects, in a case where accused
is in custody under Section 170 Cr.P.C.
then along with report all the documents on
which prosecution proposes to rely should
also be sent to the Court but it reflects,
provisions of Section 173(5)(a) Cr.P.C. do
not include the sanction order too.

31. The Apex Court in the case of
Judgebir
Singh
(supra)
was
having
occasion to discuss the issue and in this
case also charge-sheet has been filed
without sanction which was required but
Apex Court after considering Section
173(5) Cr.P.C. held that Section 173(5)
Cr.P.C.
of
course
requires
all
the
documents or all the extracts thereof on
which prosecution proposes to rely, to
accompany the final report but sanction
order cannot be brought within the category
of those documents contemplated under
clause 5 of Section 173 Cr.P.C.

32. Therefore it reflects, even if along
with the charge-sheet no sanction order has
been forwarded then also it cannot be said
that charge-sheet was incomplete and on
this ground an accused cannot be released
on default bail under Section 167(2)
Cr.P.C.

33. Further, the Apex Court in the case
of Narendra Kumar Amin Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation and others
(2015) 3 SCC 417 in para-15 observed as:-

"The observation made at para
76 of the Constitution Bench judgment of
this Court in the case of K. Veeraswamy
Vs. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 655 that
the report is complete if it is accompanied
by
all documents
and
statement
of
witnesses as required under Section 173 (5)
of Cr.P.C. cannot be construed as the
statement of law, since it was not made in
the context of the police report under
Section 2 (r) read with Section 173 (2) (5)
and (8) of Cr.P.C. On the contrary, the
three Judge Bench of this Court in the
decision in CBI Vs. R.S. Pai (2002) 5 SCC
82 case, after referring to the earlier
judgment of the coordinate Bench in
Narayan Rao Vs. State of A.P. AIR 1957 SC
737 case categorically held that the word
"shall" used in sub- Section (5) cannot be
interpreted as mandatory, but directory.
The said statement of law is made after
considering the provisions of Section 2(r)
read with Section 173 (5) and (8) of
Cr.P.C. Therefore, filing of police report
containing the particulars as mentioned
under Section 173 (2) amounted to
completion of filing of the report before the
learned ACJM, cognizance is taken and
registered the same. The contention of the
appellant that the police report filed in this
case is not as per the legal requirement
under Section 173 (2) and (5) Cr.P.C.
which entitled him for default bail, was
rightly rejected by the High Court and does
not call for any interference by this Court."

34. Further, no doubt cognizance
without sanction for offence under Section
13 P.C. Act should not be taken but even if
on the report submitted by the police under
Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. court concerned
either wrongly took the cognizance or it
34 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
could not take the cognizance, it is
irrelevant for the purpose of section 167(2)
Cr.P.C. to release the accused on default
bail because taking of cognizance and
investigation are two entirely different
matters.
Therefore
even
if
after
investigation without sanction charge-sheet
has been filed within prescribed period and
along with the charge-sheet all the required
documents have been sent then an accused
cannot be released on default bail under
Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. by declaring the
charge-sheet incomplete. This issue is also
no more res-integra and it has been
effectively addressed by the Apex Court in
case of Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand
Jain Vs. State of Maharashtra (2013) 3
SCC 77 delivered by Three Judges Bench
of the Apex Court. In this case also without
sanction charge-sheet has been filed and
when accused applied for default bail under
Section
167(2)
Cr.P.C.
then
while
dismissing his prayer the Apex Court in
paragraph Nos. 18 and 19 observed as:-

"18. None of the said cases
detract from the position that once a
charge-sheet is filed within the stipulated
time, the question of grant of default bail or
statutory bail does not arise. As indicated
hereinabove, in our view, the filing of
charge-sheet is sufficient compliance with
the provisions of Section 167(2)(a)(ii) in
this case. Whether cognizance is taken or
not is not material as far as Section 167
Cr.P.C. is concerned. The right which may
have accrued to the petitioner, had chargesheet not been filed, is not attracted to the
facts of this case. Merely because sanction
had not been obtained to prosecute the
accused and to proceed to the stage of
Section 309 Cr.P.C., it cannot be said that
the accused is entitled to grant of statutory
bail, as envisaged in Section 167 Cr.P.C.
The scheme of the Cr.P.C. is such that once
the investigation stage is completed, the
Court proceeds to the next stage, which is
the taking of cognizance and trial. An
accused has to remain in custody of some
court. During the period of investigation,
the accused is under the custody of the
Magistrate before whom he or she is first
produced. During that stage, under Section
167(2) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is vested
with authority to remand the accused to
custody, both police custody and/ or
judicial custody, for 15 days at a time, up
to a maximum period of 60 days in cases of
offences punishable for less than 10 years
and 90 days where the offences are
punishable for over 10 years or even death
sentence. In the event, an investigating
authority fails to file the charge-sheet
within the stipulated period, the accused is
entitled to be released on statutory bail. In
such a situation, the accused continues to
remain in the custody of the Magistrate till
such time as cognizance is taken by the
Court trying the offence, when the said
Court assumes custody of the accused for
purposes of remand during the trial in
terms of Section 309 Cr.P.C. The two
stages are different, but one follows the
other so as to maintain a continuity of the
custody of the accused with a court.

19. Having regard to the above,
we have no hesitation in holding that
notwithstanding
the
fact
that
the
prosecution had not been able to obtain
sanction to prosecute the accused, the
accused was not entitled to grant of
statutory bail since the charge-sheet had
been
filed
well
within
the
period
contemplated under Section 167(2)(a)(ii)
Cr.P.C. Sanction is an enabling provision
to prosecute, which is totally separate from
the concept of investigation which is
concluded by the filing of the charge-sheet.
The two are on separate footings. In that
9 All. Alok Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
35
view of the matter, the special leave
petition deserves to be and is hereby
dismissed."

35. Recently, the Apex Court in the
case of Judgebir Singh (supra) after relying
the
judgment
of
Suresh
Kumar
Bhikamchand Jain (supra) held that filing
of a charge-sheet is a sufficient compliance
with the provisions of Section 167 Cr.P.C.
and even if along with charge-sheet
sanction order has not been forwarded then
also an accused cannot claim to be released
on statutory bail under Section 167(2)
Cr.P.C. on the ground that as sanction has
not
been
obtained
therefore
either
cognizance is bad or it could not be taken.

36. Further, however, learned counsel
for applicant placed reliance on the
judgment of the Apex Court passed in the
case of Ritu Chhabaria (supra) but it
reflects, facts of the case of Ritu Chhabaria
(supra) are quite distinguishable from the
facts of the present case. In that case
although charge-sheet was filed by the
Investigating Officer but subsequently
supplementary charge-sheet was also filed
and therefore at the time of filing first
charge-sheet
investigation
was
still
pending. In such circumstances the Apex
Court took the view that there was no
question of filing any supplementary
charge-sheet taking the aid of Section
173(2) Cr.P.C. as sub section 8 of Section
173 Cr.P.C. comes into picture only after
the investigation is completed and the
charge-sheet has been filed. The Apex
Court in the case of Judgebir Singh (supra)
also distinguished the case of Ritu
Chhabaria (supra) after considering this
fact and therefore no benefit can be
extended to the applicant in view of the
observation made by the Apex Court in the
case of Ritu Chhabaria (supra).

37. Further, however, in case of Ashok
Kumar
Srivastava
(supra)
on
which
reliance was placed by learned counsel for
applicant this Court (this very Bench) after
relying on the judgment of the Apex Court
passed in the case of Ritu Chhabaria
(supra) observed that as charge-sheet has
been filed without sanction which was
required for taking cognizance, therefore,
charge-sheet is incomplete and accused of
that case was directed to be released on
default bail but from the order passed by
this Bench dated 11.07.2025 it reflects,
while passing the same this Bench could
not take notice of the judgments of the
Apex Court passed in case of Narendra
Kumar Amin (supra), Suresh Kumar
Bhikamchand Jain (supra) and Judgebir
Singh (supra).

38. Further, it also reflects, while
passing order in case of Ashok Kumar
Srivastava (supra) this Court only relied
upon the judgment of the Apex Court
passed in case of Ritu Chhabaria (supra)
and provisions of Section 173(2) and
173(5) Cr.P.C. could not be exhaustively
dealt with.

39. Further, at the time of passing the
order in case of Ashok Kumar Srivastava
(supra), this Bench also could not consider
the fact that facts of the case of Ritu
Chhabaria
(supra)
were
quite
distinguishable from the facts of the case
and in the case of Ritu Chhabaria (supra) it
was not the issue before the Apex Court
whether if charge-sheet has been filed
within stipulated period of time but without
sanction then also it can be considered
incomplete.

40. Therefore, due to above reasons
the decision given by this Bench in the case
of Ashok Kumar Srivastava (supra) is per
36 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
incuriam and therefore no benefit can be
given to the applicant on the basis of the
case of Ashok Kumar Srivastava (supra).

41. Therefore, from the discussion
made above, I find no illegality in the
impugned order dated 23.07.2025 passed
by
the
court
concerned
by
which
application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. of
the applicant to release him on default bail
has been dismissed.

42. Therefore, considering the facts
and circumstances of the case discussed
above, in view of this Court, the instant
application filed by the applicant is devoid
of
merits
and
stands
dismissed
accordingly.
---------
(2025) 9 ILRA 36
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 28653 of 2023

Himanshu Dubey ...Applicant
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Bhagwan Dutt Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the charge-sheet
dated
19.1.2021,
cognizance
order
dated
7.7.2023 and entire proceedings of Case No.
9029 of 2023 under S. 363 IPC can be quashed
in exercise of jurisdiction under S. 482 Cr.P.C.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - SS. 361 & 363 -
Kidnapping from lawful guardianship -
Interpretation - Scope and Applicability -
"Takes" and "entices" - Requirement of
promise, offer, inducement or force -
Essential ingredients - Requirement of
inducement/enticement
or
active
participation
-
S.
164
Statement
-
Voluntary Leaving by Minor.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 482 -
Quashing of proceedings - Investigation -
Charge sheet - Failure to cite victim as
prosecution witness.
Held: Victim's statements under S. 161 Cr.P.C.
disclose that she left the home as the family
member had beaten her and electrocuted her -
Victim's statement under S. 164 Cr.P.C. before
the court states that she went alone from the
home and there was no one else along with her
and the informant has incorrectly given the
name of applicant - No inducement or
enticement proved - Mere being in talking terms
with another person resulting in victim leaving
home would not attract penal provisions -
Essential ingredients of S. 361/363 IPC not
satisfied - Prosecution has failed to show that
victim was enticed away by the applicant -
Charge sheet defective - victim not made
witness - no explanation provided - Chargesheet , cognizance order and the entire criminal
proceeding quashed - Application under S. 482
Cr.P.C. allowed.(Paras 11,13,15,22,24,25,26)
(E-7)

Case Law Cited
Thakorlal D. Yadgdama v. State of Gujarat, AIR
1973 SC 2313; S. Varadarajan v. State of
Madras, AIR 1965 SC 942.

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.

List of Keywords
enticed away; voluntarily left the home; electric
shock; talking terms; kidnapping from lawful
guardianship; inducement; promise, offer or
force; cognizance; charge sheet; minor; lawful
guardian.

Case Arising From
Case No. 9029 of 2023 (State vs. Himanshu
Dubey), arising out of Case Crime No. 0382 of