Allahabad High Court

SHARIK AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 22 September 2026
Bench: RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA

Holding

The Court held that anticipatory bail may be granted despite a proclamation under Section 82/84 CrPC and a prior refusal under Section 528, and therefore enlarged the bail.

Summary

The applicants, Sharik and Smt. Bhuri, filed an anticipatory bail application in a case (Crime No.336/2022) involving alleged offences under Sections 363, 366, 506 and 368 IPC, fearing arrest after a charge‑sheet was filed. They had earlier been granted anticipatory bail during the investigation (ABAIL No.12275 of 2023) but later applied for relief under Section 528 BNSS, which the Court rejected on 04.05.2026. After a proclamation under Section 82 CrPC/84 BNSS was issued on 18.07.2026, they again sought anticipatory bail, contending no criminal antecedents and that the victim’s statement did not support the prosecution. The State opposed, arguing the applicants were absconders and that the proclamation barred bail. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Asha Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024) stating that a proclamation does not automatically preclude anticipatory bail. Considering the victim’s non‑cooperation, lack of prior criminal record and the earlier bail order, the Court enlarged the anticipatory bail with specific conditions. The bail was granted, subject to compliance with conditions and possible cancellation on breach.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail can be granted after a proclamation under Section 82 CrPC/84 BNSS has been issued.
Whether a prior refusal of relief under Section 528 BNSS bars the grant of anticipatory bail.
Whether the applicants’ alleged absconding disqualifies them from anticipatory bail.
Whether the victim’s non‑cooperation affects the grant of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 161, 164, 173(2), 528, 82, 84
Indian Penal Code — s. 363, 366, 368, 506

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 82 CrPC
proclamation
absconding
victim testimony
bail conditions
Supreme Court precedent

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9263 of 2026

Sharik And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajesh Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard Learned counsel for the applicants and Learned A.G.A. for the
State as well as perused the record.

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicants in Case Crime No.336/2022, under Sections 363,366,506 &
368 I.P.C., Police Station- Sasni Gate, District- Aligarh, with a prayer to
enlarge them on anticipatory bail as the applicants apprehend their arrest
in the abovementioned case.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the applicants had
been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in ABAIL No.12275 of 2023
by the order dated 22.11.2023 till filing of the police report under Section
173(2) of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel has further submitted that in the
meantime, the trial against the accused Bhura and others continued. In the
said trial, the statement of the victim has also been recorded and in the
cross-examination, the victim has not supported the prosecution version.
Learned counsel has further submitted that the applicants did not have
knowledge of filing of the charge-sheet and immediately on coming to
know of the filing of the charge-sheet had filed an application being
Application under Section 528 BNSS No.46567 of 2025, which was
finally dismissed by this Court by the order dated 04.05.2026 and it is
thereafter that the applicants approached the concerned Court seeking
anticipatory bail. It is stated that the applicants have no criminal
antecedents.
NABAIL No. 9263 of 2026
2

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute
the factual submissions of Learned counsel for the applicants. Learned
A.G.A. has stated that the applicants despite knowledge of the case did
not appear before the concerned Court and therefore may not be
considered for grant of anticipatory bail.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsels for
the parties.

6. The applicants had filed an application under Section 528 BNSS in
which this Court by the order dated 04.05.2026 refused to grant relief to
the applicants. The applicants appear to have moved an anticipatory bail
application post rejection of their application under Section 528 BNSS.
Prima facie this Court does not appear satisfied from the objection of
Learned A.G.A. that the applicants are absconders. The proclamation
under Section 82 Cr.P.C. / 84 BNSS has been issued against the
applicants on 18.07.2026. It is not as if in all cases the Court is barred
from consideration of anticipatory bail if coercive process under Section
82 Cr.P.C. / 84 BNSS has been issued. The Supreme Court in Asha
Dubey versus State of Madhya Pradesh 2024 OnLine SC 5633 in
paragraph No.8 has noted and opined as thus:

"Coming to the consideration of anticipatory bail, in the event of the declaration under

Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., it is not as if in all cases that there will be a total embargo on

considering the application for the grant of anticipatory bail."

7. Coming to the facts of the present case, the applicants had been granted
anticipatory bail by this Court during the pendency of the investigation.
The statement of the victim under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. indicates
that the primary allegations were against the co-accused Bhura. The
applicant No.1 is the son of applicant No.2. The applicants have filed the
statement of the alleged victim recorded before the Trial Court and in her
cross-examination she has resiled from the prosecution version. It has
been stated that the applicants have no criminal antecedents.

8. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it
appropriate to enlarge applicants on anticipatory bail.
NABAIL No. 9263 of 2026
3

9. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants
is allowed.

10. In the event of the arrest of the applicants-Sharik and Smt. Bhuri,
they shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on anticipatory
bail on furnishing of their personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of
the Station House Officer of the police station/Court concerned with the
following conditions:-

i. the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a
police officer as and when required;

ii. that the applicants shall not, directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of
the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or
to any police officer;

iii. that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous
permission of the Court;

iv. that the applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witness;

11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned
shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

12. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively
for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and are not to be
considered to be an opinion on the merits of the case.

(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
September 23, 2026
A. Pandey

Digitally signed by :-
ANAND PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…