SHUBHAM SRIVASTAVAversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

 CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482
                 BNSS No. - 10806 of 2025

Shubham Srivastava
                                                     .....Applicant(s)

                               Versus
State of U.P.
                                                        .....Opposite

                                                             Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)     : Kunwar Akhilendra Singh, Neeja
                               Srivastava, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A.

Along with :
1. Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 482 Bnss No.
   10821 of 2025:
   Rajesh Chaudhary
                              Versus
   State of U.P. and another
2. Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 482 Bnss No.
   10915 of 2025:
   Praveen Kumar
                              Versus
   State of U.P.


Court No. - 53
                   HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Kunwar Akhilendra Singh who appears for the applicant- Shubham
Srivastava, Sri Uma Nath Pandey who appears for the applicant-
Rajesh Chaudhary and Sri Prem Prakash, learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Sri Abhishek Kumar Yadav who appears for the
applicant- Praveen Kumar and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for
the State in all the matters and perused the material on record.

3. The present three anticipatory bail applications under Section 482
B.N.S.S. have been filed by the applicants- Shubham Srivastava,
                                                 NABAIL No. 10806 of 2025
                             2


Rajesh Chaudhary and Praveen Kumar, seeking anticipatory bail in
the event of arrest in Case Crime No. 162 of 2025, under Sections
308(6), 140(2), 351(3), 61(2) B.N.S. & Section 7/13 Prevention of
Corruption Act, Police Station Rajghat, District Gorakhpur.

4. These three anticipatory bail applications are connected together
as they arise out of same case crime no. and are of co-accused.

5. The facts common in all the three matters are that a first
information report was lodged on 08.08.2025 by Ravi Shankar
against a four wheeler vehicle i-20 having no. UP 32 on which some
unknown persons were travelling with the allegation that on
05.08.2025 he had gone for some personal work to Gorakhpur from
where he was returning to his house and on the way at Ekla Bridge
near Rajghat Pull at about 2 PM some unknown persons stopped his
vehicle and disclosed them to be persons of Crime Branch and told
him that he has illegal weapon. By saying so, they threatened him
and took him in a four wheeler vehicle i-20 having no. which stared
from UP 32 and made him sit in it and told him to give money after
which they would release him and forcibly took him near Nausarh
Police Chowki at a Jan Seva Kendra and made him take out Rs.
90,000/- from his account and took it from him. They threatened him
that tomorrow at 4 PM he should come with Rs. 2,00,000/- at the
same place near a shop near a hut and if he makes a complaint
anywhere then he would be murdered and thrown away to which no
one would know. They again reminded him that they are persons of
Crime Branch. On the next day at about 1.11 PM he received a
phone call reminding him of talks of yesterday and the phone was
disconnected. He got terrified and after thinking a lot is giving the
application. Appropriate legal action be taken.

6. The investigation in the matter started after which the names of the
applicants surfaced. Even investigation of the CDRs was done. The
present anticipatory bail applications have thus been filed in the
matter.

7. The first information report was lodged under Sections 308(2),
127(2), 351(3) B.N.S. in which during investigation Sections 140(2),
61(2) B.N.S. & Section 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act were added
                                                   NABAIL No. 10806 of 2025
                              3


and Section 127(2) B.N.S. was deleted.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant- Shubham Srivastava submitted
as under:-

(i) The applicant is not named in the first information report.

(ii) The location of the applicant as per the CDR was found at a
different place.

(iii) If the applicant was travelling with the informant together in the
same car there was no occasion for him to talk on his mobile as
would appear from the CDR that there were talks between them.

(iv) The informant was a regular visitor to the said Jan Seva Kendra
and had even previously drawn money from the said Jan Seva
Kendra.

(v) The applicant is a Sub-Inspector in Civil Police having no criminal
history as stated in para 31 of the affidavit.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant- Rajesh Chaudhary submitted as
under:-

(i) Adopting the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant-
Shubham Srivastava.

(ii) In addition further submitted while placing Annexure-11 to the
petition that according to the CDR location the applicant was at
Nausarh Chauraha and he was checking vehicles and road side
encroachment along with other police personnels and challans were
made of unauthorized vehicle, paragraph 25 of the affidavit has been
placed before the Court.

(iii) The inspection was being done by the applicant at a different
place and thus the presence of the applicant with the first informant is
totally false.

(iv) The applicant is posted as a Constable at Police Chowki,
Nausarh having unblemished career as stated in paragraph 18 & 19
of the affidavit.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant- Praveen Kumar submitted as
                                                 NABAIL No. 10806 of 2025
                                4


under:-

(i) He does not argue the matter on merits.

(ii) The only argument advanced is on the procedure adopted in the
present matter.

(iii) Section 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act has been added during
investigation by Parcha No. 11 dated 04.09.2025 which is Annexure-
11 to the affidavit.

(iv) The permission to investigate the matter has not been sought
from the Superintendent of Police concerned.

(v) The Proviso to Section 17 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
have not been complied with.

(vi) The investigation is illegal.

(vi) The Annexure-8 to the rejoinder affidavit clearly shows that the
Provision of Sub-Section 1 of Section 45 states of requirement of
obtaining prior permission of the State Government for arrest.

(vii) The preliminary enquiry in the matter is going on as would be
evident from the charge-sheet which is Annexure-2 to the rejoinder
affidavit submitted against the co-accused Vishal and thus an
investigation in the matter is still not being undertaken and thus the
arrest would be illegal.

(viii) The judgement in the case of Subramanian Swamy Vs.
Director C.B.I.: (2014) 8 SCC 682 paragraph 61 & 62 has been
placed to explain what preliminary enquiry means.

11. It is thus submitted that by all the learned counsels that the
anticipatory bail applications of the applicants be allowed and they be
directed to be released on anticipatory bail.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for
anticipatory bail applications vehemently and submitted as under:-

(i) The CDR of the mobile phones of the accused were found to be
having the same location as has been found by the Investigating
Officer and would be evident from the case-diary, the extract of which
                                                  NABAIL No. 10806 of 2025
                              5


is at page 72 in the anticipatory bail application of accused Shubham
Srivastava.

(ii) The investigation in the matter is still going on and there are
chances of the applicants tampering with evidence since they are
police personnels.

(iii) The allegations in the present matter are serious in nature and
even custodial interrogation may be needed for investigation.

(iv) The accused Rajesh Chaudhary is pleading alibi which is to be
proved in the trial and even otherwise the occurrence had taken place
in a long span of time and thus merely by stating that he was present
else where on duty at this stage cannot be a case to discredit the
entire prosecution version.

(v) The procedure of investigation in the matter is fully complied with.

(vi) The ground of applicability of the Proviso of Section 17 (2) of P.C.
Act is totally unfounded as the same is not applicable in the present
case since the said section itself qualifies the areas in which it is
applicable.

(vii) The question of investigation, if illegal, cannot be looked into in
an anticipatory bail.

 (viii) The matter is under investigation which is still going on and is
such where custodial interrogation is also required as the applicants
are police personnels who are alleged to have been involved in
extortion and also taking illegal money from the complainant by
misusing their post by threatening him of falsely implicating in a case
on false allegations and thus the anticipatory bail applications be
dismissed.

13. After having heard the learned counsels for the parties and
perusing the records, it is evident that the applicants are police
personnels. The allegations against them are of forcibly stopping the
complainant and taking him in their car and on a threat of falsely
implicating him by planting weapon with him made him take out
money from his bank which was taken by them and further money
was demanded by them to be paid on the next date. They even
                                                                                      NABAIL No. 10806 of 2025
                                                                  6


                                    threatened him of not disclosing it to anyone or else they would
                                    murder him and throw him away. It is not disputed that the applicants
                                    are police personnels. The investigation in the matter is going on in
                                    which charge-sheet has been submitted only against one accused
                                    Vishal. Counter affidavits of the State and rejoinder affidavits to the
                                    same have been filed. As per the argument of learned counsel for the
                                    State custodial interrogation may also be needed from the accused
                                    since there are chances of recovery also of the money and for other
                                    aspects and further apprehension is of them tampering with evidence
                                    since they are police personnels. The matter is serious in nature.
                                    Police perosnnels are alleged to have misused their official post. No
                                    ground for interference is made out.

                                    14. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and
                                    considering the submission advanced, the nature and gravity of the
                                    accusation, this Court does not find the present cases fit for grant of
                                    anticipatory bail to the applicants.

                                    15. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail applications are rejected.

                                    16. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

                                    February 25, 2026
                                    AS Rathore
                                                                                          (Samit Gopal,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad