Allahabad High Court

SURESH YADAV AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 29 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed off/Decided on merits
Bench: MADAN PAL SINGH

Holding

The anticipatory bail order is modified to remain effective until the conclusion of the trial.

Summary

The applicants, accused of assault and related offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita arising from a land dispute, obtained anticipatory bail from the Additional Sessions Judge, but the bail was limited to 30 days despite the charge‑sheet already being filed. The applicants contended that such a limitation was illegal and contrary to Supreme Court precedent, seeking its quash under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. The State opposed, arguing no error existed. The High Court examined the trial judge's reasoning, found no specific justification for the 30‑day limit, and noted the judge’s own admission of misinterpretation of law and facts. Consequently, the Court modified the impugned order, extending anticipatory bail to remain in force until the trial concludes, and disposed of the criminal application.

Issues considered

Whether the trial court erred in limiting anticipatory bail to a period of 30 days after the charge‑sheet was filed.
Whether the limitation violates principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi).
Whether the order granting limited anticipatory bail should be modified under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 110, 115(2), 317(2), 351(3), 352, 35(3), 528

Subjects

anticipatory bail
bail limitation
Section 528
Section 35
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
high court modification
land dispute
assault

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5256 of 2026

Suresh Yadav And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Janam Shahi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 81
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the
State.

2. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been preferred by the
applicants with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 23rd December,
2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Azamgarh in
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 5877 of 2025 (Suresh Yadav & Others Vs.
State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 589 of 2024 under Sections 110,
115 (2), 352, 351 (3) and 317 (2) B.N.S. Police Station-Nizamabad District-
Azamgarh only to the extent whereby the trial judge has enlarged the
applicants on bail for a limited period of only 30 days while allowing the
anticipatory bail application of the applicants.

3. Brief facts in short are that the applicants filed an anticipatory bail
application under Case Crime No. 589/2024, registered at Police Station
Nizamabad, District Azamgarh, for offences punishable under Sections 110,
115(2), 352, 351(3), and 117(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). As per
the prosecution case based on the complaint of informant Kusum Devi, wife of
Pataru Yadav, an ongoing land dispute exists between the parties. On
18.12.2024 at around 9:00 PM–10:00 PM, the named accused
persons—Suresh Yadav, Suraj Yadav, Parmila, and others—armed with sticks
(lathis), forcibly entered the informant's house, hurled abuses, and severely
assaulted her husband, Pataru Yadav. When the informant's husband
attempted to flee to the roof to save himself, the accused chased, brutally beat
him, and caused severe injuries resulting in blood loss and unconsciousness.
The accused allegedly threatened to burn the house before leaving. The
injured was initially taken to Local Block Muhammadpur, referred to Sadar
Hospital Azamgarh, and remained in critical condition under medical
treatment. The application seeks anticipatory bail citing apprehension of arrest
NA528 No. 5256 of 2026
2

in connection with the aforementioned crime. The said application has been
partly allowed by the trial court vide impugned order dated 23rd December,
2025 while granting anticipatory bail to the applicants for a limited period of 30
days only. It is against this part of the order that the present criminal
application has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that during the course of
investigation or till the filing of charge-sheet the applicants have not been
arrested by the Police and they followed the terms and conditions of notice
under Section 35 (3) of B.N.S.S. The maximum punishment under the alleged
offence as alleged against the applicants is below 7 years. It is further
submitted that the learned trial judge has not applied his judicial mind and
illegally granted anticipatory bail to the applicants for a period of only 30 days
on the anticipatory bail application of the applicants while passing the
impugned order. Once the anticipatory bail application has been allowed after
submission of the police report and cognizance has been taken thereupon by
the court below, then there was no occasion to limit the time of 30 days to
grant anticipatory bail, it must be granted till the conclusion of the trial court
imposing the normal conditions in view of the Constitution Bench Judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State ( NCT of Delhi)
reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1.

On the above premise, learned counsel for the applicants urges that since the
trial judge has committed gross error in imposing the limitation of 30 days time
in granting anticipatory bail to the applicants while passing the impugned,
therefore, the same is liable to be quashed by this Court in exercise of powers
under Section 528 B.N.S.S. only to that extent as mentioned above.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the applicants by submitting that there is no illegality or
infirmity in the order passed by the trial court, which may warrant any
interference by this Court under Section 528 B.N.S.S.

6. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions
made by the learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State
and gone through the records of the present criminal application including the
impugned order.

7. While granting interim protection to the applicants, this Court has passed
following order on 18th August, 2026:

"1. From a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that while allowing the
anticipatory bail application, the trial court has granted anticipatory bail for a
period of only 30 days. In paragraph no. 6 of the impugned order reflects that
NA528 No. 5256 of 2026
3

the charge-sheet had already been submitted by the Investigating Officer and
cognizance had been taken by the concerned trial court. However, while
allowing the anticipatory bail application, the trial court has not given any
specific finding as to why the anticipatory bail has been granted for a period of
only 30 days. The accused/applicants would be required to seek fresh interim
bail application after the expiry of 30 days, which would result unnecessary
harassment of the applicants.

1. Issue notice to the opposite party no. 2 through CJM concerned returnable
at an early date. Steps be taken within one week.

2. Put up as fresh on 15th September, 2026.

3. Till the next date of listing, order dated 23.12.2025 granting anticipatory bail
in favour of the applicants is extended.

4. The office is directed to call for a report from the concerned trial court as to
why and under which provision of law, interim bail has been granted to the
applicants for a period of only 30 days.

5. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the
District Judge, Azamgarh for necessary compliance."

8. Pursuant to the order of the Court dated 18th August, 2026, the concerned
trial judge has sent his explanation vide his letter dated 3rd September, 2026.
Since this Court has not satisfied with the said explanation, therefore, this
Court directed the concerned trial judge to submit his further explanation vide
order dated 15th September, 2026.

9. Pursuant to the order dated 15th September, 2026, the concerned trial
judge has sent his further explanation vide letter dated 22nd September, 2026
which has been brought on record along with the order-sheet.

10. In the further explanation dated 22nd September, 2026, the concerned trial
judge has stated that because of wrong interpretation of law and misreading of
facts, he has committed such mistakes while passing the impugned order. In
his explanation, the concerned trial judge for the mistake being committed by
him has tendered unconditional apology.

11. Since this Court is satisfied with he further explanation given by the
concerned trial judge, therefore, no further orders are required to be passed in
that regard.

12. It is settled law that any court of law like the Civil Court or the High Court
or Apex Court can either allow the anticipatory bail application of the accused
NA528 No. 5256 of 2026
4

granting bail to him till the conclusion of the trial imposing certain conditions
or to reject the bail application considering the gravity of the offence. In the
explanation given by the trial judge, he has also not mentioned the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case on which he has granted anticipatory bail
to the applicants for a limited period of 30 days only.

13. As already stated by the concerned trial judge in his further explanation
that he has judge has misread the facts and misinterpreted the law on the
subject, while granting anticipatory bail to an accused under the order
impugned, therefore, in the interest of justice the order impugned is liable to
be modified to the extent that the anticipatory bail is granted to the applicants
till the conclusion of the trial of the aforementioned criminal case.

14. Consequently, impugned order dated 23rd December, 2025 passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Azamgarh in Anticipatory Bail
Application No. 5877 of 2025 (Suresh Yadav & Others Vs. State of U.P.)
arising out of Case Crime No. 589 of 2024 under Sections 110, 115 (2), 352,
351 (3) and 317 (2) B.N.S. Police Station-Nizamabad District-Azamgarh is
modified to the extent that the applicants are granted anticipatory bail till the
conclusion of the trial of the aforesaid criminal case.

15. The present criminal application stands disposed of finally.

September 30, 2026
Sushil/-
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…