Allahabad High Court
ARJUN SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The Court rejected the anticipatory bail application and ordered that regular bail be considered if the applicant appears within four weeks, applying the Supreme Court precedent.
Summary
Arjun Singh, charged with offences under Sections 147, 148, 427 IPC and Section 4 of the Government Property Damages Act, had been absconding since 2004 and earlier obtained a three‑week interim protection under Section 528 CrPC, which he failed to act upon. He subsequently filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 CrPC. The learned A.G. objected, arguing that the offences do not carry a punishment of more than seven years and that the anticipatory bail was not maintainable. The applicant sought to withdraw the anticipatory bail plea and apply for regular bail, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2021). The Court, with the A.G.’s consent, rejected the anticipatory bail application and directed that if the applicant appears in the pending case within four weeks and applies for bail, his bail request will be considered expeditiously in line with the Supreme Court precedent. The anticipatory bail application was therefore disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 CrPC is maintainable when the alleged offences do not attract imprisonment of more than seven years and the applicant has previously obtained interim protection but failed to appear.
- Whether the applicant should be directed to seek regular bail in the pending criminal case, applying the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482, 528
- Government Property Damages Act — s. 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 427
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- regular bail
- non‑bailable warrant
- IPC offences
- Supreme Court precedent
- procedural direction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 8525 of 2026
Arjun Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Surendra Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.
1. The Learned A.G.A., at the outset, has raised a preliminary objection
by stating that the offences for which the applicant has been charged, in
the event of conviction, do not entail imprisonment of more than seven
years.The applicant has been absconding since the year 2004 and had
moved an application before this Court being APPLICATION U/S 528
BNSS No. - 25522 of 2026, in which this Court, on the prayer of the
applicant, taking note of the issuance of non-bailable warrants and
proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C., granted interim protection of three
weeks from the date of the order, i.e. 06.07.2026, and directed the
applicant to appear and apply for bail before the concerned court. The
Learned A.G.A. has further stated that the applicant, despite the prayer
made before this Court and the interim protection granted, did not appear
and has moved this anticipatory bail application, which is not
maintainable.
2. On being confronted with this fact, the Learned counsel for the
applicant prays that he may be permitted to withdraw this application with
liberty to appear before the concerned court and apply for regular bail,
which may be considered and decided expeditiously in the light of the
order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil
vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2021) 10 SCC 773.
3. The Learned A.G.A. has no objection to the said prayer.
NABAIL No. 8525 of 2026
2
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.162 of 1993, under Sections 147, 148, 427 I.P.C. and Section 4 of
Government Property Damages Act, P.S.- Farah, District-
Mathura, before the Court concerned within a period of four weeks from
today and applies for bail, his bail application shall be considered and
disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law laid down by the
Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation & Another, (2021) 10 SCC 773, and the subsequent orders
passed by the Supreme Court in the above-mentioned case, without being
influenced by any observations made by the concerned Court, while
rejecting the anticipatory bail application of the applicant.
5. With the aforesaid observations/directions, this application stands
disposed of.
(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
September 8, 2026
Sachin
Digitally signed by :-
SACHIN TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…