Allahabad High Court
AMAN SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The anticipatory bail application is not maintainable and is disposed of, with a direction to the investigating officer to comply with Supreme Court guidelines.
Summary
Aman Singh filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 CrPC in Crime No.0380 of 2026, fearing arrest. The State objected, arguing that the alleged offences do not attract a punishment exceeding seven years and that safeguards under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and Supreme Court rulings (Arnesh Kumar, Mohd. Asfak Alam, Satender Kumar Antil) already protect the applicant. The applicant’s counsel could not rebut the objection. The Court, after considering the facts, held the application untenable and disposed of it, directing the investigating officer to strictly follow the Supreme Court directions in the cited cases. No anticipatory bail was granted.
Issues considered
- Whether an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 CrPC is maintainable when the alleged offences do not carry a punishment of more than seven years.
- Whether Section 35(3) of the BNSS and existing Supreme Court judgments provide sufficient protection, rendering anticipatory bail unnecessary.
- Whether the investigating officer must comply with the Supreme Court directions in the cited cases.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 35(3)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- maintainability
- investigation
- Supreme Court directions
- Section 35(3) BNSS
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9169 of 2026
Aman Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sharad Mishra, Vijaya Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Raghvendra Pratap Rajan,
Satyajeet Singh Yadav
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.0380 of 2026, under Section 305(2) BNS,
Police Station Chaubeypur, District Varanasi, 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. 9169 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 8, 2026
S.A.
Digitally signed by :-
SALMAN AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…