The Supreme Court on December 3, 2025, refused to interfere with ongoing criminal proceedings against former Uttar Pradesh legislator Bal Kumar Patel, observing that mandatory High Court approval for withdrawal of prosecution was never obtained. The atmosphere in Courtroom No. - where Justice Sanjay Karol spoke for the bench - was calm but firm as the matter concluded within minutes of arguments.
Background
The cases trace back to 2007 when Patel was accused under the Arms Act and cheating-related offences of the Indian Penal Code. The charges arose from claims that he held an arms licence improperly, although the licence was restored by local authorities in 2012, which the defense argued neutralised the criminal allegations.
Later, in 2014, the Uttar Pradesh government decided to withdraw several FIRs calling it “in public interest and in the interest of justice,” and instructed the Public Prosecutor to file applications for withdrawal. These applications were duly moved before the trial court.
However, the trial court declined to permit withdrawal because, after a landmark Supreme Court ruling in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India (2021), cases involving sitting or former lawmakers cannot be dropped without the High Court’s nod.
Court’s Observations
Justice Karol read out the bench’s reasoning slowly, pointing toward earlier precedents on how and when state prosecutors may withdraw charges:
“The Public Prosecutor must first independently assess the reasons… Courts must be satisfied that the move is in the larger interest of justice,” the bench noted while referring to the legal principles.
The judges reiterated the broader mandate that criminal accountability of elected representatives cannot be diluted casually especially in matters impacting governance and public trust.
The ruling emphasised that trial judges and High Courts must scrutinize whether the Executive action is based on fairness not convenience.
Decision
Concluding the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the High Court was correct in refusing to quash the cases because the mandatory procedural safeguard was missing:
“This permission is missing in the present case. The impugned judgment therefore cannot be faulted with,” the bench observed while dismissing the appeal.
The matter will now continue before the trial court, with Patel free to raise legal defenses during discharge or trial. And with that, the Court closed the file leaving the legal battle very much alive.
Case Title: Bal Kumar Patel @ Raj Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh