Allahabad High Court
SHAMIMversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The Court ordered the applicant to withdraw the anticipatory bail application, appear within four weeks to apply for regular bail, and barred any coercive action during that period, thereby disposing of the anticipatory bail application.
Summary
Shamim applied for anticipatory bail under CrPC s.482 after a charge sheet was filed. The A.G. argued that the alleged offences (IPC s.420, 406, 506) do not carry a punishment exceeding seven years, so there is no risk of arrest. The applicant sought to withdraw the anticipatory bail application and instead apply for regular bail, invoking the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2021). The Court agreed, directing the applicant to appear in the pending case within four weeks and file a regular bail application, and ordered that no coercive action be taken against him during that period. The anticipatory bail application was consequently disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail is warranted when the alleged offences do not attract a punishment of more than seven years.
- Whether the applicant may withdraw the anticipatory bail application and seek regular bail in accordance with Supreme Court precedent.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 420, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- regular bail
- CrPC 482
- IPC offences
- Supreme Court direction
- coercive action
- withdrawal of application
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 8214 of 2026
Shamim
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Raj Pandey, Shubham Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.
1. The Learned A.G.A. has pointed out that a charge sheet has already
been filed against the applicant. He has raised an objection that the
offences that have been alleged against the applicant, do not entail a
punishment of more than seven years, in the event of a conviction.
Therefore, there is no apprehension of arrest of the applicant.
2. On such an objection being raised, the Learned counsel for the
applicant prays that he may be permitted to withdraw the present
application with liberty to the applicant to appear before the concerned
Court and apply for regular bail, which may be directed to be decided in
accordance with the direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation &
Another, (2021) 10 SCC 773 and in the meantime their interest may be
protected.
3. The Learned A.G.A. has no objection to the said prayer.
4. Taking into account the submissions made by the Learned counsel for
the parties, it is directed that in case the applicant appears in Case Crime
No.669 of 2017, under Sections 420, 406, 506 of the I.P.C., P.S.
Gulawathi, District Bulandshahar, before the Court concerned within a
period of four weeks from today and applies for bail, the same shall be
considered and disposed of, expeditiously, in accordance with direction
given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra)
NABAIL No. 8214 of 2026
2
and the subsequent orders passed therein, without being influenced by any
observations made by the concerned Sessions Judge while rejecting the
anticipatory bail application of the applicant.
5. For a period of four weeks from today, no coercive action shall be
taken against the applicants.
6. With the aforesaid observations/directions, this application stands
disposed of.
(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
September 8, 2026
Kushal
Digitally signed by :-
KUSHAL AGRAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…