Allahabad High Court
ADITYA SINGH DHAMA @ ADITYA DHAMAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The Court declined the anticipatory bail application and directed the applicant to seek regular bail, barring any coercive action for four weeks.
Summary
The applicant, Aditya Singh Dhama, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the CrPC in a case pending under Section 420 IPC. The Additional Government Advocate objected, arguing that the alleged offence does not carry a punishment exceeding seven years, a chargesheet has already been filed, and there is no apprehension of arrest, rendering the anticipatory bail plea untenable. The applicant’s counsel requested that he be allowed to approach the trial court for regular bail, invoking the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2021). The A.G.A. raised no objection to this alternative prayer. The High Court directed that the applicant must appear before the concerned court within four weeks to apply for regular bail, and that no coercive action be taken against him during that period, thereby disposing of the anticipatory bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether an anticipatory bail application is maintainable when the offence is punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years and a chargesheet has been filed.
- Whether the applicant can be directed to seek regular bail instead of anticipatory bail under the Supreme Court’s precedent.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 420
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- regular bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- Section 420 IPC
- coercive action
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9254 of 2026
Aditya Singh Dhama @ Aditya Dhama
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Babu Lal Ram, Hari Shankar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.
1. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. has raised an objection that the
offences alleged against the applicant is not punishable with
imprisonment exceeding seven years. It is further submitted that the
chargesheet has been filed and there is no apprehension of arrest of the
applicant, therefore, the present application seeking anticipatory bail is
not maintainable.
2. After some arguments, learned counsel for the applicant prays that the
applicant may be permitted to approach the concerned Court and apply
for regular bail, which may be directed to be decided in accordance with
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar
Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2021) 10 SCC
773. He further prays that for a short time, the interest of the applicant
may be protected.
3. The learned A.G.A. has no objection to the said prayer.
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.1059 of 2018 under Section 420 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Shehar,
District Bijnor, 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
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of
NABAIL No. 9254 of 2026
2
Investigation & Another, (2021) 10 SCC 773, and also subsequent
orders of the Supreme Court in the aforementioned case, without being
influenced by any observations made by the concerned Court while
rejecting the anticipatory bail application of the applicant.
5. For a period of four weeks from today, no coercive action shall be
taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.
6. With the aforesaid observations/directions, this application stands
disposed of.
(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
September 23, 2026
A. Pandey
Digitally signed by :-
ANAND PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…