Allahabad High Court
PANKAJversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The anticipatory bail application was dismissed, with the court directing the investigating officer to comply with the Supreme Court directions in the cited cases.
Summary
The applicant filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the BNSS in a case involving alleged offences under Sections 74, 115(2) and 351(2) of the BNSS, claiming fear of arrest. The State opposed, arguing that the offences do not attract a punishment of more than seven years and that protection is already available under Section 35(3) of the BNSS as well as Supreme Court rulings in Arnesh Kumar, Mohd. Asfak Alam and Satender Kumar Antil. The applicant’s counsel could not rebut the objection. The Court, after considering the facts, dismissed the anticipatory bail application and directed the investigating officer to strictly follow the Supreme Court directions in the cited cases while conducting the investigation.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail is maintainable when the alleged offences do not carry a punishment exceeding seven years.
- Whether Section 35(3) of the BNSS and existing Supreme Court jurisprudence provide sufficient safeguard, rendering the anticipatory bail application unnecessary.
- Whether the investigating officer must comply with the Supreme Court directions laid down in Arnesh Kumar, Mohd. Asfak Alam and Satender Kumar Antil.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 115(2), 351(2), 35(3), 74
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482
- Section 35(3)
- BNSS
- Supreme Court directions
- investigation
- maintainability
- punishment threshold
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9405 of 2026
Pankaj
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Adiba Khatoon, Sunil Kumar Singh
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. 790 of 2026, under Sections 74, 115(2), and
351(2) B.N.S., Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District-Bulandshahar, 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. 9405 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 11, 2026
Sartaj
Digitally signed by :-
SARTAJ AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…