Allahabad High Court
SANJEEV KUMAR GUPTAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The Court disposed of the anticipatory bail application, finding it not maintainable and directing compliance with Supreme Court directions.
Summary
The applicant, Sanjeev Kumar Gupta, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a case (Crime No.46/2026) involving alleged offences under Sections 276, 277, 278 and 318(4) of the BNSS Act. The State, represented by the Additional Advocate General, objected that the application was not maintainable because the alleged offences do not attract a punishment of more than seven years and that Section 35(3) of the BNSS, together with the Supreme Court rulings in Arnesh Kumar (2024) and Mohd. Asfak Alam (2023), already safeguard the applicant’s rights. The applicant’s counsel could not rebut this objection. The Court, after considering the facts, held that the anticipatory bail application should be disposed of and directed the investigating officer to strictly follow the Supreme Court directions in the cited cases while conducting the investigation. Consequently, the application was dismissed without granting bail.
Issues considered
- Whether an anticipatory bail application is maintainable when the alleged offences do not carry a punishment exceeding seven years.
- Whether Section 35(3) of the BNSS Act and the Supreme Court judgments in Arnesh Kumar and Mohd. Asfak Alam provide sufficient protection, rendering anticipatory bail unnecessary.
- Whether the court should grant anticipatory bail in the present circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic and Smuggling (BNSS) Act — s. 276, 277, 278, 318(4), 35(3)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- BNSS Act
- maintainability
- investigation directions
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 10144 of 2026
Sanjeev Kumar Gupta
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : G.A., Raghubir Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the
State.
2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No.46/ 2026, under Sections 276, 277, 278, 318(4)
of BNS, Police Station-Kotwali, District Agra, with a prayer to enlarge him
on anticipatory bail as the applicant apprehend his arrest in the above-
mentioned case.
3. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. has raised an objection regarding
the maintainability of the instant application by submitting that the applicant
does not apprehend his arrest as the offences that have been alleged against
the applicant do not entail in the event of a conviction, a punishment of more
than seven years. He further contends that appropriate protection has been
provided in the BNSS itself in the form of Section 35(3) BNSS and the
judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the cases of Arnesh Kumar vs.
State of Bihar and Anr., 2024 (8) SCC 273 and Mohd. Asfak Alam vs.
State of Jharkhand and anr., (2023) 8 SCC 632 also safeguard the interest
of the applicant.
4. Upon being confronted with the objection raised by the learned A.G.A.,
the learned counsel for the applicant failed to satisfactorily meet the same.
5. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it
NABAIL No. 10144 of 2026
2
would be appropriate to dispose of the present application with a direction to
the Investigating Officer to strictly comply with the directions issued by the
Supreme court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) and Mohd. Asfak Alam (supra)
while conducting the investigation in the above-mentioned case.
6. The application stands disposed of.
(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
September 29, 2026
Radhika
Digitally signed by :-
RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…