Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

ALATMASH MALIK @ KURBANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided

Holding

The Court disposed of the anticipatory bail application, directing compliance with the Supreme Court directions, and did not grant bail.

Summary

The applicant, Alatmash Malik, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with a case (Crime No. 250 of 2025) involving alleged offences under Section 353(2) of the Bihar Negotiable Securities Act (BNSS) and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act. He claimed apprehension of arrest and sought bail. The State's Additional Government Advocate objected, 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 the Supreme Court decisions 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, disposed of the anticipatory bail application and directed the investigating officer to strictly follow the Supreme Court directions in the cited cases while conducting the investigation. Consequently, no anticipatory bail was granted.

Issues considered

  • Whether an anticipatory bail application 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.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • Section 482
  • BNSS
  • Information Technology Act
  • Supreme Court directions
  • investigation
  • Section 35(3)
  • punishment threshold
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 10230 of 2026

Alatmash Malik @ Kurban
                                                               .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                                  .....Opposite
                                                                        Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                  :   Amit Rai, Gaurav 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 250 of 2025, under Sections 353(2) of BNS and
Section 66 of I.T. Act, Police Station Charthawal, District Muzaffarnagar,
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. 10230 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 30, 2026
                                    A.P. Pandey




Digitally signed by :-
ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.