Allahabad High Court
AAJEETversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The Court held that the anticipatory bail application was not maintainable and disposed of it, directing compliance with Supreme Court directions.
Summary
The applicant, Aajeet, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the CrPC in a criminal case (Crime No. 408 of 2026) alleging Sections 76 and 351(2) of the BNSS, claiming apprehension of arrest. The State opposed, arguing that the alleged offences do not carry a punishment exceeding seven years, that Section 35(3) of the BNSS already provides protection, and that Supreme Court rulings in Arnesh Kumar (2024) and Mohd. Asfak Alam (2023) safeguard the applicant’s interests. The applicant’s counsel could not rebut these objections. The Court, after considering the facts, held the anticipatory bail application not maintainable and disposed of it, directing the investigating officer to strictly follow the Supreme Court directions in the cited cases.
Issues considered
- Whether an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 is maintainable when the alleged offences do not attract a punishment of more than seven years.
- Whether Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the Supreme Court judgments in Arnesh Kumar and Mohd. Asfak Alam provide sufficient protection, rendering anticipatory bail unnecessary.
- Whether the applicant has a genuine apprehension of arrest justifying anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 351(2), 35(3), 76
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482
- maintainability
- BNSS
- Section 35(3)
- Supreme Court directions
- investigation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 10145 of 2026
Aajeet
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Krishna Mohan Pandey, Nilesh Kumar
Dubey, Shashi Shekhar Maurya
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 408 of 2026, under Sections 76 and 351(2)
BNS, Police Station Badlapur, District Jaunpur, 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. 10145 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
Nitendra
Digitally signed by :-
NITENDRA TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…