Allahabad High Court
RAJKUMAR DUBEYversusSTATE 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 the Supreme Court directions.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 of the CrPC by Rajkumar Dubey, who feared arrest in a 2018 case involving offences under Sections 147, 406, 420 and 120‑B IPC. The State opposed, arguing that the alleged offences did not attract a punishment exceeding seven years, that Section 35(3) of the BNSS already provided protection, and that Supreme Court judgments in Arnesh Kumar (2024) and Mohd. Asfak Alam (2023) safeguarded the applicant’s interests. The applicant’s counsel could not rebut these objections. Consequently, the Court disposed of the anticipatory bail application and directed the investigating officer to strictly follow the Supreme Court directions in the cited cases.
Issues considered
- Whether an anticipatory bail application is maintainable when the alleged offences carry a maximum punishment of less 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.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 35(3)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120-B, 147, 406, 420
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- maintainability
- BNSS
- Section 35(3)
- Supreme Court directions
- investigation compliance
- IPC offences
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 10181 of 2026
Rajkumar Dubey
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ravikant Shukla
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 902 of 2018, under Sections 147, 406, 420 and
120-B IPC, Police Station Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar, 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
would be appropriate to dispose of the present application with a direction to
NABAIL No. 10181 of 2026
2
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…