Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

NITESH KUMAR SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided

Holding

The Court held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted where the alleged offences do not attract a punishment of more than seven years and existing statutory and case law safeguards are deemed sufficient.

Summary

The applicant filed an anticipatory bail application under CrPC Section 482 in a criminal case (No. 420 of 2024) alleging offences under IPC Sections 420 and 406. The State’s Additional Government Advocate argued that anticipatory bail was not maintainable because the alleged offences did not attract a punishment exceeding seven years and that protection was already available under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and Supreme Court precedents. The applicant’s counsel could not rebut this objection. The Court, after considering the facts, held that the safeguards under the BNSS and the cited Supreme Court judgments were sufficient and that anticipatory bail could not be granted. Consequently, the application was disposed of with a direction to the investigating officer to follow the Supreme Court guidelines in conducting the investigation.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail is maintainable when the alleged offences carry a punishment of less than seven years.
  • Whether Section 35(3) of the BNSS and existing Supreme Court judgments provide adequate protection, rendering anticipatory bail unnecessary.
  • Whether the investigating officer must comply with the Supreme Court directions in the investigation of the case.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • CrPC 482
  • Section 35(3) BNSS
  • investigation
  • arrest
  • punishment threshold
  • Supreme Court directions

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 8933 of 2026

Nitesh Kumar Singh
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                               .....Opposite
                                                                     Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Abhinab Mishra,          Nirdosh     Kumar
                                Chaturvedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 71
                 HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard, the Learned counsel for the applicant and the Learned A.G.A.
for the State.

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No.420 of 2024, under Sections 420 and 406 of
the I.P.C., P.S.- Aonla, District- Bareilly, with a prayer to enlarge him on
anticipatory bail as the applicant apprehends his arrest in the above-
mentioned 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 passed by the Supreme Court in
the cases of 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 reported in 2026 INSC 115 also safeguard the interest of
the applicant.

4. Upon being confronted with the objection raised by the learned A.G.A.,
                                                                                          NABAIL No. 8933 of 2026
                                                                   2


                                    the Learned counsel for the applicant failed to satisfactorily meet the
                                    same.

                                    5. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the
                                    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), Mohd. Asfak
                                    Alam (Supra) and Satender Kumar Antil (Supra) while conducting
                                    the investigation in the above-mentioned case.

                                    6. The application stands disposed of.



                                                                                      (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
                                    September 9, 2026
                                    Sachin




Digitally signed by :-
SACHIN TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.