# Sunil Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 93 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2025-08-18 - **Case number:** Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 5804 of 2025 - **Bench:** Avnish Saxena - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sunil-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54755 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote G.A. Issue for consideration Pertains to limited relief to be permitted to appear before the trial court to face trial without being taken into judicial custody. Headnotes Bhartiya Nagrik Sanrakshan Sanhita, 2023- All District Judges shall ensure -in cases where the charge- sheet has been filed without arrest- whether because custodial interrogation was not effected during investigation by Investigating Officer-or the accused had secured anticipatory bail/protective orders and duly cooperated during investigation- the trial court shall not remand the accused to judicial custody upon appearance pursuant to summons-at the stage of proceedings u/s 88, 170, 204, and 209 Cr.P.C. (corresponding sections 91, 190, 227 and 232 of BNSS)-the trial court- shall inform the accused of his right to furnish a personal bond at the first instance-and may require surety subsequently- immediately after appearance of accused in response to summons- the court shall comply with Sections 230 and 231 of BNSS, 2023-committing the case to the court of session when exclusively triable by it, and proceed to the next trial stage without unnecessary delay. Held: It is hereby directed that the mandatory requirement of two sureties are dispensed with, and henceforth, (i) the accused(s)/convict(s), as the case may be, shall be released on a " single surety", subject to the satisfaction of the Magistrate or the court concerned- the satisfaction shall drive from the socio- economic condition of the accused- and that the surety bond amount be fixed in accordance with the financial strength of the accused. In case, the accused(s) is unable to produce sound surety within seven days from the date of grant of bail, it would be the duty of the Superintendent of Jail to inform the Secretary, DLSA who may depute from para legal volunteer or jail visiting advocate to interact with the prisoner and assist the prisoner in all ways possible for his release. (E-9) ## Text 8 All. Sunil Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 93 judgment rendered by this Court in Arvind Singh (supra). The aforesaid sureties shall then be transmitted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli after verification to the learned trial court at Ambedkar Nagar. The said sureties shall be accepted by the learned trial court at Ambedkar Nagar. 12. Learned trial court at Ambedkar Nagar and learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli shall expedite the proceedings and ensure that the sureties submitted by the applicants are verified and processed at the earliest. 13. With the aforesaid direction, the application under Section 528 BNSS is disposed of. --------- (2025) 8 ILRA 93 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.08.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J. Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 5804 of 2025 Sunil Singh ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicant: Manoj Kumar Counsel for the Opposite Parties: G.A. Issue for consideration Compromise in FIR u/s 376 IPC Headnotes Compromise in section 376 IPC-Chargesheet submitted under Section 376 I.P.C.- applicant and opposite party no.2 were classmates and there was dispute between the two-led to lodging of F.I.R.- both have entered into compromise and does not want to pursue the matter- no point in getting the trial continued-as the star witness would not support the prosecution case. Application allowed. (E-9) Case Law Cited Nil List of Acts Indian Penal Code List of Keywords Compromise, Section 376 I.P.C. Appearances of parties Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar, Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. (Delivered by Hon'ble Avnish Saxena, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Case No.36783 of 2023 (State Vs. Sunil Singh) as well as charge sheet dated 05.11.2021 and cognizance/summoning order dated 30.01.2025, arising out of Case Crime No.482 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504 and 376 I.P.C., Police Station Gulriha, District Gorakhpur, pending before the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fast Track Court/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur in terms of compromise entered into between the parties. The charge-sheet has been submitted including under Section 376 I.P.C. 3. Sri Girish Pandey, holding brief of learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant and opposite 94 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES party no.2 were classmates and there was dispute between the two, which led to lodging of F.I.R. on 31.08.2021 under Sections 354, 354D, 323 and 504 I.P.C. in respect to incident dated 30.08.2021. It is further submitted that both the applicant and opposite party no.2 have entered into compromise and does not want to pursue the matter. 4. Sri Suraj Raj, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 admitted that there is a compromise between the parties and contents of paragraphs-3, 4 and 5 of the affidavit filed by opposite party no.2 reveal that the compromise has been accepted. 5. There is no point in getting the trial continued, when the parties have buried their differences as the star witness would not support the prosecution case. 6. In view of above, the charge sheet and the proceeding arose out of case crime number mentioned above is hereby quashed. Consequently, the proceedings of trial is also quashed. 7. The application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. is allowed accordingly. --------- (2025) 8 ILRA 94 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.08.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J. Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 6400 of 2025 Smt. Bacchi Devi ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicant: Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Counsel for the Opposite Parties: G.A. Issue for consideration Pertains to limited relief to be permitted to appear before the trial court to face trial without being taken into judicial custody. Headnotes Bhartiya Nagrik Sanrakshan Sanhita, 2023- All District Judges shall ensure -in cases where the charge- sheet has been filed without arrest- whether because custodial interrogation was not effected during investigation by Investigating Officer-or the accused had secured anticipatory bail/protective orders and duly cooperated during investigation- the trial court shall not remand the accused to judicial custody upon appearance pursuant to summons-at the stage of proceedings u/s 88, 170, 204, and 209 Cr.P.C. (corresponding sections 91, 190, 227 and 232 of BNSS)-the trial court- shall inform the accused of his right to furnish a personal bond at the first instance-and may require surety subsequently- immediately after appearance of accused in response to summons- the court shall comply with Sections 230 and 231 of BNSS, 2023-committing the case to the court of session when exclusively triable by it, and proceed to the next trial stage without unnecessary delay. Held: It is hereby directed that the mandatory requirement of two sureties are dispensed with, and henceforth, (i) the accused(s)/convict(s), as the case may be, shall be released on a " single surety", subject to the satisfaction of the Magistrate or the court concerned- the satisfaction shall drive from the socio- economic condition of the accused- and that the surety bond amount be fixed in accordance with the financial strength of the accused. In case, the accused(s) is unable to produce sound surety within seven days from the date of grant of bail, it would be the duty of the Superintendent of Jail to inform the Secretary, DLSA who may depute from para legal volunteer or jail visiting advocate to interact with the prisoner and assist the prisoner in all ways possible for his release. (E-9)