Allahabad High Court
SUAIB KHAN AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The Court held that the anticipatory bail application was not maintainable and disposed of it, directing compliance with Supreme Court guidelines in the investigation.
Summary
The applicants, Suaib Khan and another, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a case registered under Sections 132 and 121(1) of the BNSS, 2023, fearing arrest. The State, represented by the Advocate General, objected, arguing that the alleged offences did not carry a punishment exceeding seven years and that Section 35(3) of the BNSS and Supreme Court precedents already provided sufficient protection. The applicants' counsel could not rebut this objection satisfactorily. The Court, after considering the facts, directed the investigating officer to strictly follow the Supreme Court guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar, Mohd. Asfak Alam, and Satender Kumar Antil while conducting the investigation. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was disposed of without granting bail.
Issues considered
- Whether the anticipatory bail application is maintainable when the alleged offences do not attract a punishment of more than seven years.
- Whether Section 35(3) of the BNSS and existing Supreme Court judgments provide adequate protection, rendering anticipatory bail unnecessary.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 121(1), 132, 35(3)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- BNSS 2023
- Section 35(3)
- Arnesh Kumar guidelines
- investigation compliance
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 8910 of 2026
Suaib Khan And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prashant Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for
the State.
2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicants in Case Crime No. 308 of 2026, under Sections 132 and 121(1)
of the B.N.S., 2023, Police Station – Dibiyapur, District Auraiya, with a
prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail, as the applicants apprehend
their arrest in the aforesaid case.
3. At the very outset, the Learned A.G.A. has raised an objection
regarding the maintainability of the instant application by submitting that
the applicant does not apprehend his arrest as the offences that have been
alleged against the applicant do not entail in the event of a conviction, a
punishment of more than seven years. He further contends that
appropriate protection has been provided in the BNSS itself in the form of
Section 35(3) BNSS and the judgments of the Supreme Court in Arnesh
Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Anr. 2014 (8) SCC 273, Mohd. Asfak
Alam vs. State of Jharkhand and anr. (2023) 8 SCC 63 and Satender
Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 2026 INSC 115 also
safeguard the interest of the applicants.
4. Upon being confronted with the objection raised by the learned A.G.A.,
the Learned counsel for the applicants failed to satisfactorily meet the
same.
5. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the
NABAIL No. 8910 of 2026
2
case, it would be appropriate to dispose of the present application with a
direction to the Investigating Officer to strictly comply with the directions
issued by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) and Mohd.
Asfak Alam (supra) and Satender Kumar Antil (supra) while
conducting the investigation in the above mentioned case.
6. This application is accordingly disposed of.
(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
September 9, 2026
Kushal
Digitally signed by :-
KUSHAL AGRAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…