Allahabad High Court
RAVI JAAT AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The Court held that the anticipatory bail application is not maintainable where the alleged offences do not attract a punishment exceeding seven years and existing statutory and case law safeguards are sufficient.
Summary
The applicants filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the BNSS and Sections 3 and 4 of the Public Gambling Act, fearing arrest in a criminal case. The State opposed, arguing that the alleged offences do not carry a punishment exceeding seven years and that Section 35(3) of the BNSS along with Supreme Court precedents already provide sufficient protection. The applicants were unable to rebut this objection. The Court, after considering the facts, held that the application was not maintainable and ordered the investigating officer to follow the Supreme Court guidelines in the cited cases. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was disposed without grant of bail.
Issues considered
- The applicability of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS for offences punishable with less than seven years imprisonment
- Whether existing statutory protection under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and Supreme Court judgments obviate the need for anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. Section 35(3), Section 482
- Public Gambling Act — s. Section 3, Section 4
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482
- Public Gambling Act
- investigation
- Supreme Court directions
- maintainability
- punishment threshold
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9256 of 2026
Ravi Jaat And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kiran Tiwari, Mahesh Chandra Tiwari
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.182/2026 under Section 112(2) B.N.S. and
Section 3/4 of the Public Gambling Act, P.S. -Transyamuna, District -
Agra, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail as the applicants
apprehend their arrest in the abovementioned 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 applicants do not apprehend their arrest as the offences that have been
alleged against the applicants 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 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
NABAIL No. 9256 of 2026
2
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 of the aforesaid case.
6. The 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…