Allahabad High Court
HARI SHANKAR CHARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The anticipatory bail application was dismissed and the matter disposed of.
Summary
The applicant filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a case (Crime No.111 of 2025) involving alleged offences under Section 318(4) of the BNS and Sections 60, 63 and 72 of the Uttar Pradesh Excise Act. The State opposed the application, arguing that the offences do not carry a punishment of more than seven years and that Section 35(3) of the BNS together with Supreme Court judgments (Arnesh Kumar, Mohd. Asfak Alam and Satender Kumar Antil) already safeguard the applicant’s rights. The applicant’s counsel could not rebut the objection. The Court, after considering the facts, dismissed the anticipatory bail application and directed the investigating officer to strictly follow the Supreme Court directions in the cited cases while conducting the investigation. The application was therefore disposed of without grant of bail.
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 BNS and the Supreme Court judgments cited obviate the need for anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 318(4), 35(3)
- Uttar Pradesh Excise Act — s. 60, 63, 72
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- Uttar Pradesh Excise Act
- BNS
- maintainability
- Supreme Court directions
- investigation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 10294 of 2026
Hari Shankar Char
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ratan Kumar Bhardwaj, Rishabh
Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, 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.111 of 2025, under Sections 318(4) of BNS
and Sections 60, 63, 72 of Uttar Pradesh Excise Act, Police Station -Sadar
Bazar, District- Saharanpur, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory
bail as the applicant apprehends his arrest in the abovementioned 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. 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 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
NABAIL No. 10294 of 2026
2
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 of the aforesaid case.
6. The application stands disposed of.
(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
October 1, 2026
A. Pandey
Digitally signed by :-
ANAND PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…