MUNNA YADAV @ MUNNA LAL AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 10291 of 2026

Munna Yadav @ Munna Lal And 3 Others
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Ratan Kumar Mishra, Shiv Prakash
                                Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 71
                 HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard, the Learned counsel for the applicants and the Learned A.G.A.
for the State.

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicants in Case Crime No.95 of 2026, under Sections 132, 352, 324(5)
of B.N.S. and Section 3 of The Prevention of Damage to Public Property
Act, 1984, P.S.- Santnagar, District- Mirzapur, with a prayer to enlarge
them on anticipatory bail as the applicants apprehend their 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 applicants do not apprehend their arrest as the offences that have been
alleged against the applicants 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. 2014 (8) SCC
273, Mohd. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand and anr. (2023) 8
SCC 63 and Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation 2026 INSC 115 also safeguard the interest of the
applicants.
                                                                                         NABAIL No. 10291 of 2026
                                                                   2


                                    4. Upon being confronted with the objection raised by the learned A.G.A.,
                                    the Learned counsel for the applicants 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 the Investigating Officer to strictly comply with the directions
                                    issued by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra), Mohd. Asfak
                                    Alam (Supra) and Satender Kumar Antil (Supra) while conducting
                                    the investigation in the above-mentioned case.

                                    6. The application stands disposed of.

                                    7. It is made clear that the police officer shall not be influenced by the
                                    rejection of the anticipatory bail application of the applicants or any
                                    observation made therein by the concerned Sessions Judge while refusing
                                    to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants.



                                                                                      (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
                                    October 1, 2026
                                    Sachin




Digitally signed by :-
SACHIN TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad