Allahabad High Court
JUGGALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The anticipatory bail application was disposed of, with the Court directing compliance with Supreme Court directions and denying bail.
Summary
The applicant filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 CrPC in a case involving offences under Sections 333, 110, 351(3), 352 and 115(2) of the IPC, fearing arrest. The State opposed, arguing the application was not maintainable because none of the alleged offences attracted a punishment exceeding seven years and that Section 35(3) of the BNSS, along with Supreme Court judgments (Arnesh Kumar, Mohd. Asfak Alam, Satender Kumar Antil), already safeguarded the applicant. The applicant’s counsel could not rebut the objection. The Court, after considering the facts, disposed of the anticipatory bail application and directed the investigating officer to strictly follow the Supreme Court directions in the cited cases while conducting the investigation. Consequently, the applicant was not granted anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether an anticipatory bail application is maintainable when the alleged offences do not carry a punishment of more than seven years.
- Whether Section 35(3) of the BNSS provides sufficient protection, rendering anticipatory bail unnecessary.
- Whether the investigating officer must comply with Supreme Court directions in the investigation of the case.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 35(3)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 110, 115(2), 333, 351(3), 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- maintainability
- investigation directions
- BNSS
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9266 of 2026
Juggal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Raj Pandey, Shubham Pandey
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.663 of 2026, under Sections 333, 110, 351(3),
352, 115(2) BNS, Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr, 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.,
the Learned counsel for the applicant failed to satisfactorily meet the
NABAIL No. 9266 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 in the above-mentioned case.
6. The application stands disposed of.
(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
September 23, 2026
S.A.
Digitally signed by :-
SALMAN AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…