Allahabad High Court
SUJIT KUMAR GHOSHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The court disposed of the anticipatory bail application, directing the applicant to seek regular bail within four weeks and restraining any coercive action.
Summary
The applicant, Sujit Kumar Ghosh, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the CrPC after a charge sheet was filed. The Additional Government Advocate argued that the alleged offences, punishable with less than seven years’ imprisonment, did not create a risk of arrest. The applicant sought to withdraw the anticipatory bail plea and instead apply for regular bail, invoking the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI. The court, with no objection from the A.G., directed the applicant to appear in the pending case (Crime No.45 of 2025) within four weeks, apply for bail under Section 318(4) of the B.N.S. and Section 66D of the IT Act, and ordered that no coercive action be taken during that period. The anticipatory bail application was consequently disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail is warranted when the alleged offences carry a maximum punishment of less than seven years.
- Whether the applicant may withdraw the anticipatory bail application and seek regular bail under the Supreme Court’s direction in Satender Kumar Antil.
- Whether the court can restrain coercive action against the applicant pending regular bail application.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 318(4)
- Information Technology Act — s. 66D
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- regular bail
- Supreme Court direction
- coercive action
- cyber crime
- IT Act
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 8221 of 2026
Sujit Kumar Ghosh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashish Rai
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.45 of 2025, under Section 318(4) of the B.N.S. and Section 66D of the
I.T. Act, P.S. Cyber Crime, District Ghaziabad, 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
NABAIL No. 8221 of 2026
2
Satender Kumar Antil (supra) 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…