Allahabad High Court
OMENDRA @ OGENDRAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The court held that non‑disclosure of criminal antecedents under the prescribed rule renders the anticipatory bail application defective, justifying its dismissal as withdrawn.
Summary
The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Additional Government Advocate objected that the applicant had not disclosed his complete criminal antecedents as mandated by Chapter XVIII, Rule 18(7) of the Rules of the Court. The applicant's counsel requested permission to withdraw the present application and file a fresh one with the required disclosure. The court accepted this request, dismissed the present application as withdrawn, and allowed the applicant to re‑file a compliant application. Certified copies of the order were to be returned to the applicant’s counsel.
Issues considered
- Whether the anticipatory bail application is defective for not disclosing the applicant's criminal antecedents as required under Chapter XVIII, Rule 18(7) of the Rules of the Court.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- criminal antecedents
- procedural compliance
- withdrawal of application
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 8224 of 2026
Omendra @ Ogendra
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Lal Prabhakar Singh, Pradeep Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anuj Kumar Gupta, G.A.
Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.
1. At the very outset, the Learned A.G.A. raised an objection by
submitting that in this application, the applicant has not explained his
complete criminal antecedents as is required under the provisions of
Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 sub-Rule (7) of the Rules of the Court.
2. On being confronted with this objection, the Learned counsel for the
applicant submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this application
with liberty to file a fresh application explaining the criminal antecedents
of the applicant in view of the provisions of Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 sub-
Rule (7) of the Rules of the Court.
3. Taking into account the prayer made by the Learned counsel for the
applicant, this application stands dismissed as withdrawn with the above-
mentioned liberty.
4. Certified copies may be returned to the Learned counsel for the
applicant.
5. This order has been passed in the presence of Miss Shreya Singh,
Learned Advocate, holding the brief of Sri Anuj Kumar Gupta, the
Learned counsel for the informant.
(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
September 8, 2026
Sachin
Digitally signed by :-
SACHIN TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…